'No summer lockdown' - fears over traveller camps will not result in open space closure, says Poole council leader

Bournemouth Echo: 'No summer lockdown' - fears over traveller camps will not result in open space closure, says Poole council leader 'No summer lockdown' - fears over traveller camps will not result in open space closure, says Poole council leader

COUNCIL leader Elaine Atkinson says this summer will not be a case of ‘lockdown Poole.’

She’s also balked at suggestions she should resign her position after the borough’s planning committee ruled against the temporary stopping places proposals she had backed.

“The committee’s decision is democracy at work, she told the Daily Echo.

“The council must now decide what it is going to do in terms of temporary stopping places and unauthorised encampments this year.”

Cllr Atkinson fears the borough will again experience another summer punctuated with unauthorised traveller encampments.

Last year’s increased traveller activity led to the council meeting where the idea of temporary stopping places, just one on a list of ideas to explore, was mooted.

“We will certainly have travellers this year and I was particularly keen to move to temporary stopping paces because I felt we were on the brink of some public order issues last year,” said Cllr Atkinson.

“And I don’t want to see people get hurt.

“We cannot lock Poole down because of the areas travellers come to here. Take Whitecliff – we cannot lock it down and make it inaccessible because the air ambulance lands there, the ambulances need to gain access.

“Likewise for a lot of our open spaces, but that is not to say we won’t be target hardening sensitive sites. We were already doing that anyway as part of our plans.”

Poole’s leader says the borough will continue working with Poole MP Robert Syms, who is trying to instigate legislation change to enable Poole to share an out of town permanent transit site with its local authority neighbours.

She also said: “I must stress this is only my personal view, but we’ve just had a strategic car parking review and we could look at the possibility of making one of the borough’s car parks available as a temporary stopping site this year. But, as I have stressed, this is only my personal view at the moment. It has not been put to council.”

On the Judy Butt issue – the Creekmoor ward councillor who was sacked from her cabinet position after refusing to back the cabinet’s stance on the traveller sites – Cllr Atkinson says she had no regrets.

She added: “That was not a personal decision shot from the hip. It was well thought out and taken under advice.”

Cllr Atkinson said: “Last year we had a number of unauthorised encampments and by the end of the summer it was beginning to feel like we could have some public disorder issues.

“It isn’t illegal to be a traveller and the government has no plans to outlaw being a traveller, so they have rights in law like the rest of us do. If residents don’t want to have travellers on our recreational grounds and open spaces then we have to have some other provision.”

"Groundhog day"

Dorset Police and Crime Commissioner Martyn Underhill said: "Unless an alternative site exists, the Police cannot use their powers under Section 62A to move the travellers on.

"The powers available under Section 61 of the same Act require a very high threshold of criminality before it can be invoked and therefore, it is rarely used.

"The traveller issue has become like Groundhog Day. The travellers have nowhere to go and so they move to unauthorised sites.

"I received scores of complaints from residents demanding action, as did the Boroughs.

"I have been actively engaged with the Borough of Poole in trying to find a solution.

"I am responsible for ensuring an effective and efficient police force for Dorset.

"The Chief Constable is responsible for enforcing the law and overseeing operational policing.

"Neither roles can work properly if Parliament gives the Police two separate powers in relation to travellers, yet Dorset Police can only enforce one."

Comments (90)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:10am Fri 21 Mar 14

cunone says...

The idea of a car park is fine but on the following assumptions
1. Do a proper consultation with all parties first and listen!
2. Don't use the park and ride at Creekmoor out of revenge.
3. Use several car parks around the town so the hit is spread and fair. If you allowed 3 or 4 vans at Whitecliffe and the same at Baiter then it may just seem a fair process
4. Don't authorise works to sites before you have consent
5. This council has little money to spend on those who pay rates so stop wasting it
The idea of a car park is fine but on the following assumptions 1. Do a proper consultation with all parties first and listen! 2. Don't use the park and ride at Creekmoor out of revenge. 3. Use several car parks around the town so the hit is spread and fair. If you allowed 3 or 4 vans at Whitecliffe and the same at Baiter then it may just seem a fair process 4. Don't authorise works to sites before you have consent 5. This council has little money to spend on those who pay rates so stop wasting it cunone
  • Score: 17

10:13am Fri 21 Mar 14

Buzetti says...

A Summer approaches, this is becoming an emergency.

Why not an emergency, temporary solution to cover this Summer?

Dedicate the unused park& ride as a 'temporary stopping site' for a 6 month period from 1st April to end of September.

That will buy some time to find a permanant solution by this time next year.

Otherwise, the open invitation extended to Travellers by Ms. Atkinson of 'no lockdown' will make our parks and car parks no-go areas for our legitimate Council Tax paying communities once again.

There is a huge cost to the Borough of removing illegal encampments, plus the lost revenue from occupied car parks and the inability of local residents to make use of facilities such as the Whitecliffe play area.
A Summer approaches, this is becoming an emergency. Why not an emergency, temporary solution to cover this Summer? Dedicate the unused park& ride as a 'temporary stopping site' for a 6 month period from 1st April to end of September. That will buy some time to find a permanant solution by this time next year. Otherwise, the open invitation extended to Travellers by Ms. Atkinson of 'no lockdown' will make our parks and car parks no-go areas for our legitimate Council Tax paying communities once again. There is a huge cost to the Borough of removing illegal encampments, plus the lost revenue from occupied car parks and the inability of local residents to make use of facilities such as the Whitecliffe play area. Buzetti
  • Score: -1

10:16am Fri 21 Mar 14

DorsetFerret says...

She also said: “I must stress this is only my personal view, but we’ve just had a strategic car parking review and we could look at the possibility of making one of the borough’s car parks available as a temporary stopping site this year.

Very sensible comments from 'cunone', the revenge bit did occur to me. Don't even think 'Park and Ride'.
She also said: “I must stress this is only my personal view, but we’ve just had a strategic car parking review and we could look at the possibility of making one of the borough’s car parks available as a temporary stopping site this year. Very sensible comments from 'cunone', the revenge bit did occur to me. Don't even think 'Park and Ride'. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 9

10:22am Fri 21 Mar 14

Red Leader 1 says...

We now have a clear outcome as to what is not being done and a pretty good idea of the six figure sum it has cost Council Tax payers to get nowhere, so that just leaves us with one very simple request -
Please do SOMETHING!
We now have a clear outcome as to what is not being done and a pretty good idea of the six figure sum it has cost Council Tax payers to get nowhere, so that just leaves us with one very simple request - Please do SOMETHING! Red Leader 1
  • Score: 10

10:25am Fri 21 Mar 14

TheDistrict says...

I still cannot understand Cllr Atkinson's stance on the sacking of Cllr Judy Butt from her cabinet job. Moreso now, when Cllr Atkinson has stated in the Echo pages that she knew that the Creekmoor and Oakdale sites were doomed. Therefore, if that was her thinking on her own part, why did she sack Cllr Butt who was agreeing with her constituents, who if we are honest is why she is a councillor, to support her electorate. I am not saying that Cllr Atkinson should stand herself, although it probably would be better for all, but she should seriously consider, and revoke her sacking of Cllr Butt and reinstate her in the Cabinet.

Using carparks will only strike up another scenario we have just seen yesterday over the Creekmoor and Oakdale sites. Is it not time now, as stated by the Poole MP, to get together with the Bournemouth Council and Dorset Council and think on using part of the green belt north of the two towns, such as Matchams, Canford Magna. I bet if a price was put up for the old garden centre along the Parliey Road, and proposals put forward for a travellers site, the people of West Parley would be up in arms and the matter dropped straight away.
I still cannot understand Cllr Atkinson's stance on the sacking of Cllr Judy Butt from her cabinet job. Moreso now, when Cllr Atkinson has stated in the Echo pages that she knew that the Creekmoor and Oakdale sites were doomed. Therefore, if that was her thinking on her own part, why did she sack Cllr Butt who was agreeing with her constituents, who if we are honest is why she is a councillor, to support her electorate. I am not saying that Cllr Atkinson should stand herself, although it probably would be better for all, but she should seriously consider, and revoke her sacking of Cllr Butt and reinstate her in the Cabinet. Using carparks will only strike up another scenario we have just seen yesterday over the Creekmoor and Oakdale sites. Is it not time now, as stated by the Poole MP, to get together with the Bournemouth Council and Dorset Council and think on using part of the green belt north of the two towns, such as Matchams, Canford Magna. I bet if a price was put up for the old garden centre along the Parliey Road, and proposals put forward for a travellers site, the people of West Parley would be up in arms and the matter dropped straight away. TheDistrict
  • Score: 7

10:39am Fri 21 Mar 14

Isosceles says...

If 'travellers' insist on using car parks but don't pay the fees then clamp their vehicles and prosecute them if they remove the clamps without paying the fines - simples.
If 'travellers' insist on using car parks but don't pay the fees then clamp their vehicles and prosecute them if they remove the clamps without paying the fines - simples. Isosceles
  • Score: 42

10:40am Fri 21 Mar 14

Stereotyped says...

Maybe we should all just park our cars/vans/motorbikes where ever we like this summer, on parks...fields etc and not pay for any parking. Hell, maybe even cut our way through locked gates to gain access.

Oh no wait, we would be prosecuted, silly me!
Maybe we should all just park our cars/vans/motorbikes where ever we like this summer, on parks...fields etc and not pay for any parking. Hell, maybe even cut our way through locked gates to gain access. Oh no wait, we would be prosecuted, silly me! Stereotyped
  • Score: 40

10:42am Fri 21 Mar 14

KLH says...

Mr Jones comes across as an affable chap but when he refers to a small part of the travelling community spoiling it for others, he is wrong. We must treat members of the travelling community like human beings he says. Well, pardon me, Mr Jones, if the travelling community did have such a small percentage of troublemakers then there wouldn't be a fraction of the problems in finding a site. If travellers respected the rights of the settled community as much as they expect us to respect them then they would find dealing with us a lot easier.
Mr Jones comes across as an affable chap but when he refers to a small part of the travelling community spoiling it for others, he is wrong. We must treat members of the travelling community like human beings he says. Well, pardon me, Mr Jones, if the travelling community did have such a small percentage of troublemakers then there wouldn't be a fraction of the problems in finding a site. If travellers respected the rights of the settled community as much as they expect us to respect them then they would find dealing with us a lot easier. KLH
  • Score: 26

10:46am Fri 21 Mar 14

elite50 says...

If I park illegally, I either get a fine or I get towed.
If I cause litter, I get fined.
If I break into a locked door or gate I get charged with either break and enter or trespass.
These are the rules that I and my fellow countrymen live by.
This is MY country.
Why are a bunch of "using" foreigners allowed to ignore the rules of MY country???
If I park illegally, I either get a fine or I get towed. If I cause litter, I get fined. If I break into a locked door or gate I get charged with either break and enter or trespass. These are the rules that I and my fellow countrymen live by. This is MY country. Why are a bunch of "using" foreigners allowed to ignore the rules of MY country??? elite50
  • Score: 65

10:58am Fri 21 Mar 14

speedy231278 says...

Pretty simple solution really. Prevent them getting onto open land with vehicles! Only a few weeks ago there was a story in the paper about a bunch of Caravan Using Nomadic Travelling Society members trying to break into a site, and the authorities eventually just let them in 'in case they injured themselves' or a bystander, thereby meaning they could not be immediately evicted for breaking into and trespassing on an open space. What's the point any more? It seems they are above the rest of us who actually contribute to society!
Pretty simple solution really. Prevent them getting onto open land with vehicles! Only a few weeks ago there was a story in the paper about a bunch of Caravan Using Nomadic Travelling Society members trying to break into a site, and the authorities eventually just let them in 'in case they injured themselves' or a bystander, thereby meaning they could not be immediately evicted for breaking into and trespassing on an open space. What's the point any more? It seems they are above the rest of us who actually contribute to society! speedy231278
  • Score: 23

11:01am Fri 21 Mar 14

Dave2207 says...

Travellers are one of the few groups of 'people' that regularly match - and often exceed - the expected anti-social and criminal behaviour of their stereotypes. Nobody wants them - and for very good reasons. The sooner that the local councils take draconian action against this plague the better.
Travellers are one of the few groups of 'people' that regularly match - and often exceed - the expected anti-social and criminal behaviour of their stereotypes. Nobody wants them - and for very good reasons. The sooner that the local councils take draconian action against this plague the better. Dave2207
  • Score: 37

11:16am Fri 21 Mar 14

BarrHumbug says...

Make it the responsibility of the organisers and farmland owners of the Steamfair, after all isn't that why they come to the county?
Make it the responsibility of the organisers and farmland owners of the Steamfair, after all isn't that why they come to the county? BarrHumbug
  • Score: 15

11:23am Fri 21 Mar 14

High Treason says...

But they are protected under EU human Rights law. You vote for the EU grovellers and you pay the price.
But they are protected under EU human Rights law. You vote for the EU grovellers and you pay the price. High Treason
  • Score: 9

11:39am Fri 21 Mar 14

DorsetFerret says...

TheDistrict wrote:
I still cannot understand Cllr Atkinson's stance on the sacking of Cllr Judy Butt from her cabinet job. Moreso now, when Cllr Atkinson has stated in the Echo pages that she knew that the Creekmoor and Oakdale sites were doomed. Therefore, if that was her thinking on her own part, why did she sack Cllr Butt who was agreeing with her constituents, who if we are honest is why she is a councillor, to support her electorate. I am not saying that Cllr Atkinson should stand herself, although it probably would be better for all, but she should seriously consider, and revoke her sacking of Cllr Butt and reinstate her in the Cabinet.

Using carparks will only strike up another scenario we have just seen yesterday over the Creekmoor and Oakdale sites. Is it not time now, as stated by the Poole MP, to get together with the Bournemouth Council and Dorset Council and think on using part of the green belt north of the two towns, such as Matchams, Canford Magna. I bet if a price was put up for the old garden centre along the Parliey Road, and proposals put forward for a travellers site, the people of West Parley would be up in arms and the matter dropped straight away.
Some more common sense comments in the above. The council (as a whole) need to start thinking outside of the box. Yes, follow the suggestion of Robert Syms and talk to other authorities with the same problem but that may be longer term. What's needed now is somewhere for this summer. This needs to be in a low or none residential area or the same thing will happen as in Creekmoor. The options that present themselves around Longham, Canford Magna and the airport should be identified. Alternatively consider under utilised parking in summer. Gravel hill police station = hard standing water etc., Bournemouth University, massive parking area, Homebase Tower Parks, large car park underutilized (some already rented off to local car companies. Vacant land around the twin sails bridge

Just a little more original thinking please.
[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: I still cannot understand Cllr Atkinson's stance on the sacking of Cllr Judy Butt from her cabinet job. Moreso now, when Cllr Atkinson has stated in the Echo pages that she knew that the Creekmoor and Oakdale sites were doomed. Therefore, if that was her thinking on her own part, why did she sack Cllr Butt who was agreeing with her constituents, who if we are honest is why she is a councillor, to support her electorate. I am not saying that Cllr Atkinson should stand herself, although it probably would be better for all, but she should seriously consider, and revoke her sacking of Cllr Butt and reinstate her in the Cabinet. Using carparks will only strike up another scenario we have just seen yesterday over the Creekmoor and Oakdale sites. Is it not time now, as stated by the Poole MP, to get together with the Bournemouth Council and Dorset Council and think on using part of the green belt north of the two towns, such as Matchams, Canford Magna. I bet if a price was put up for the old garden centre along the Parliey Road, and proposals put forward for a travellers site, the people of West Parley would be up in arms and the matter dropped straight away.[/p][/quote]Some more common sense comments in the above. The council (as a whole) need to start thinking outside of the box. Yes, follow the suggestion of Robert Syms and talk to other authorities with the same problem but that may be longer term. What's needed now is somewhere for this summer. This needs to be in a low or none residential area or the same thing will happen as in Creekmoor. The options that present themselves around Longham, Canford Magna and the airport should be identified. Alternatively consider under utilised parking in summer. Gravel hill police station = hard standing water etc., Bournemouth University, massive parking area, Homebase Tower Parks, large car park underutilized (some already rented off to local car companies. Vacant land around the twin sails bridge Just a little more original thinking please. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 12

11:41am Fri 21 Mar 14

BmthNewshound says...

When it comes to traveller sites Councils are caught between a rock and a hard place. No one wants a travellers camp on their doorstep and even if these camps were provided there is no guarantee that the travellers would use them.
When it comes to traveller sites Councils are caught between a rock and a hard place. No one wants a travellers camp on their doorstep and even if these camps were provided there is no guarantee that the travellers would use them. BmthNewshound
  • Score: 11

11:52am Fri 21 Mar 14

DorsetFerret says...

Message for Police Commissioner Underhill.

Quote -Dorset Police and Crime Commissioner Martyn Underhill said: "Unless an alternative site exists, the Police cannot use their powers under Section 62A to move the travellers on.

Pray tell Mr Underhill, why not? They seem clear to me.

The Police may activate their powers under section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to require gypsies/travellers to leave.

The Police are able to activate these powers where they are satisfied that two or more more people are trespassing on the land, and the landowner has taken reasonable steps to make them leave (and they have failed to do so). In addition, one of the following also has to apply:

•damage has been caused to the land or property, or

•threatening / abusive / insulting behaviour has been used against the occupier, his family or agent.

I'd be interested to know the answer.
Message for Police Commissioner Underhill. Quote -Dorset Police and Crime Commissioner Martyn Underhill said: "Unless an alternative site exists, the Police cannot use their powers under Section 62A to move the travellers on. Pray tell Mr Underhill, why not? They seem clear to me. The Police may activate their powers under section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to require gypsies/travellers to leave. The Police are able to activate these powers where they are satisfied that two or more more people are trespassing on the land, and the landowner has taken reasonable steps to make them leave (and they have failed to do so). In addition, one of the following also has to apply: •damage has been caused to the land or property, or •threatening / abusive / insulting behaviour has been used against the occupier, his family or agent. I'd be interested to know the answer. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 27

11:57am Fri 21 Mar 14

N Smith says...

DorsetFerret wrote:
Message for Police Commissioner Underhill.

Quote -Dorset Police and Crime Commissioner Martyn Underhill said: "Unless an alternative site exists, the Police cannot use their powers under Section 62A to move the travellers on.

Pray tell Mr Underhill, why not? They seem clear to me.

The Police may activate their powers under section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to require gypsies/travellers to leave.

The Police are able to activate these powers where they are satisfied that two or more more people are trespassing on the land, and the landowner has taken reasonable steps to make them leave (and they have failed to do so). In addition, one of the following also has to apply:

•damage has been caused to the land or property, or

•threatening / abusive / insulting behaviour has been used against the occupier, his family or agent.

I'd be interested to know the answer.
The Police are weak and scared of the travellers , as for Underhill what a waste of money.
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: Message for Police Commissioner Underhill. Quote -Dorset Police and Crime Commissioner Martyn Underhill said: "Unless an alternative site exists, the Police cannot use their powers under Section 62A to move the travellers on. Pray tell Mr Underhill, why not? They seem clear to me. The Police may activate their powers under section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to require gypsies/travellers to leave. The Police are able to activate these powers where they are satisfied that two or more more people are trespassing on the land, and the landowner has taken reasonable steps to make them leave (and they have failed to do so). In addition, one of the following also has to apply: •damage has been caused to the land or property, or •threatening / abusive / insulting behaviour has been used against the occupier, his family or agent. I'd be interested to know the answer.[/p][/quote]The Police are weak and scared of the travellers , as for Underhill what a waste of money. N Smith
  • Score: 25

12:08pm Fri 21 Mar 14

hadvar says...

Let's assume for a minute that a 'transit site' will be helpful because it'll provide somewhere for them to be 'moved on' to. And let's also assume that what is written above where they look at parking facilites as potential sites is true as well. Where is there a large, almost completely unused parking facility? Sorry once again Creekmorians, if there really does have to be a camp, there is one simple answer.....
Let's assume for a minute that a 'transit site' will be helpful because it'll provide somewhere for them to be 'moved on' to. And let's also assume that what is written above where they look at parking facilites as potential sites is true as well. Where is there a large, almost completely unused parking facility? Sorry once again Creekmorians, if there really does have to be a camp, there is one simple answer..... hadvar
  • Score: -4

12:25pm Fri 21 Mar 14

muscliffman says...

elite50 wrote:
If I park illegally, I either get a fine or I get towed.
If I cause litter, I get fined.
If I break into a locked door or gate I get charged with either break and enter or trespass.
These are the rules that I and my fellow countrymen live by.
This is MY country.
Why are a bunch of "using" foreigners allowed to ignore the rules of MY country???
Exactly, but however much they may currently deny it the true sympathies of the majority of 'liberals' entrenched in modern local and national UK politics and public life (Lib/Lab and Con) still DO remain firmly with the 'travellers' and the ill considered EU Human Rights Act. Indeed our own PCC by his inaction, statements and timely disappearing Acts when 'traveller' problems arise locally has eminently summarised Dorset Police's own 'politically correct' liberal position - the 'travellers' rights ARE apparently more important to them than the laws which govern the rest of us.

So we do need to concentrate our energies upon the basic problem of UK 'traveller' ethnic recognition and ensure we exclusively look to politicians, political parties and public figures who share an ambition to end it. Because if we can one day deny that recognition as the Irish Republic already has then all these other tiresome 'traveller' problems will quite simply go away and the rights of the general law abiding public will again prevail.
[quote][p][bold]elite50[/bold] wrote: If I park illegally, I either get a fine or I get towed. If I cause litter, I get fined. If I break into a locked door or gate I get charged with either break and enter or trespass. These are the rules that I and my fellow countrymen live by. This is MY country. Why are a bunch of "using" foreigners allowed to ignore the rules of MY country???[/p][/quote]Exactly, but however much they may currently deny it the true sympathies of the majority of 'liberals' entrenched in modern local and national UK politics and public life (Lib/Lab and Con) still DO remain firmly with the 'travellers' and the ill considered EU Human Rights Act. Indeed our own PCC by his inaction, statements and timely disappearing Acts when 'traveller' problems arise locally has eminently summarised Dorset Police's own 'politically correct' liberal position - the 'travellers' rights ARE apparently more important to them than the laws which govern the rest of us. So we do need to concentrate our energies upon the basic problem of UK 'traveller' ethnic recognition and ensure we exclusively look to politicians, political parties and public figures who share an ambition to end it. Because if we can one day deny that recognition as the Irish Republic already has then all these other tiresome 'traveller' problems will quite simply go away and the rights of the general law abiding public will again prevail. muscliffman
  • Score: 18

12:25pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Ash_69 says...

TheDistrict wrote:
I still cannot understand Cllr Atkinson's stance on the sacking of Cllr Judy Butt from her cabinet job. Moreso now, when Cllr Atkinson has stated in the Echo pages that she knew that the Creekmoor and Oakdale sites were doomed. Therefore, if that was her thinking on her own part, why did she sack Cllr Butt who was agreeing with her constituents, who if we are honest is why she is a councillor, to support her electorate. I am not saying that Cllr Atkinson should stand herself, although it probably would be better for all, but she should seriously consider, and revoke her sacking of Cllr Butt and reinstate her in the Cabinet.

Using carparks will only strike up another scenario we have just seen yesterday over the Creekmoor and Oakdale sites. Is it not time now, as stated by the Poole MP, to get together with the Bournemouth Council and Dorset Council and think on using part of the green belt north of the two towns, such as Matchams, Canford Magna. I bet if a price was put up for the old garden centre along the Parliey Road, and proposals put forward for a travellers site, the people of West Parley would be up in arms and the matter dropped straight away.
Alas, some of the sites you mention are not in the Borough of Poole. This is what the current limitations of the law dictates.

East Dorset have sorted themselves out with temporary places for the Summer and so will be able to use the Section 62A to move them on. But if they cross into Poole, then eviction at cost each time is the only way to go.

Another reason to have one big borough as there then opens up more spaces to move them too.
[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: I still cannot understand Cllr Atkinson's stance on the sacking of Cllr Judy Butt from her cabinet job. Moreso now, when Cllr Atkinson has stated in the Echo pages that she knew that the Creekmoor and Oakdale sites were doomed. Therefore, if that was her thinking on her own part, why did she sack Cllr Butt who was agreeing with her constituents, who if we are honest is why she is a councillor, to support her electorate. I am not saying that Cllr Atkinson should stand herself, although it probably would be better for all, but she should seriously consider, and revoke her sacking of Cllr Butt and reinstate her in the Cabinet. Using carparks will only strike up another scenario we have just seen yesterday over the Creekmoor and Oakdale sites. Is it not time now, as stated by the Poole MP, to get together with the Bournemouth Council and Dorset Council and think on using part of the green belt north of the two towns, such as Matchams, Canford Magna. I bet if a price was put up for the old garden centre along the Parliey Road, and proposals put forward for a travellers site, the people of West Parley would be up in arms and the matter dropped straight away.[/p][/quote]Alas, some of the sites you mention are not in the Borough of Poole. This is what the current limitations of the law dictates. East Dorset have sorted themselves out with temporary places for the Summer and so will be able to use the Section 62A to move them on. But if they cross into Poole, then eviction at cost each time is the only way to go. Another reason to have one big borough as there then opens up more spaces to move them too. Ash_69
  • Score: 8

12:26pm Fri 21 Mar 14

DorsetFerret says...

hadvar wrote:
Let's assume for a minute that a 'transit site' will be helpful because it'll provide somewhere for them to be 'moved on' to. And let's also assume that what is written above where they look at parking facilites as potential sites is true as well. Where is there a large, almost completely unused parking facility? Sorry once again Creekmorians, if there really does have to be a camp, there is one simple answer.....
Let's try and clear this up once and for all. If the council were able to use the Creekmoor Park and Ride they would have done so. My understanding is that when they accepted government funding to tarmac this green-field site they also agreed to terms and conditions that restricted it's use as a park and ride only. They cannot use it.
[quote][p][bold]hadvar[/bold] wrote: Let's assume for a minute that a 'transit site' will be helpful because it'll provide somewhere for them to be 'moved on' to. And let's also assume that what is written above where they look at parking facilites as potential sites is true as well. Where is there a large, almost completely unused parking facility? Sorry once again Creekmorians, if there really does have to be a camp, there is one simple answer.....[/p][/quote]Let's try and clear this up once and for all. If the council were able to use the Creekmoor Park and Ride they would have done so. My understanding is that when they accepted government funding to tarmac this green-field site they also agreed to terms and conditions that restricted it's use as a park and ride only. They cannot use it. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 15

12:45pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Mad Karew says...

DorsetFerret wrote:
hadvar wrote:
Let's assume for a minute that a 'transit site' will be helpful because it'll provide somewhere for them to be 'moved on' to. And let's also assume that what is written above where they look at parking facilites as potential sites is true as well. Where is there a large, almost completely unused parking facility? Sorry once again Creekmorians, if there really does have to be a camp, there is one simple answer.....
Let's try and clear this up once and for all. If the council were able to use the Creekmoor Park and Ride they would have done so. My understanding is that when they accepted government funding to tarmac this green-field site they also agreed to terms and conditions that restricted it's use as a park and ride only. They cannot use it.
Absolutely correct. There are a couple of under-used car parks in Poole which could be used but guess whose ward they are in...............
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hadvar[/bold] wrote: Let's assume for a minute that a 'transit site' will be helpful because it'll provide somewhere for them to be 'moved on' to. And let's also assume that what is written above where they look at parking facilites as potential sites is true as well. Where is there a large, almost completely unused parking facility? Sorry once again Creekmorians, if there really does have to be a camp, there is one simple answer.....[/p][/quote]Let's try and clear this up once and for all. If the council were able to use the Creekmoor Park and Ride they would have done so. My understanding is that when they accepted government funding to tarmac this green-field site they also agreed to terms and conditions that restricted it's use as a park and ride only. They cannot use it.[/p][/quote]Absolutely correct. There are a couple of under-used car parks in Poole which could be used but guess whose ward they are in............... Mad Karew
  • Score: 10

12:46pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Letcommonsenseprevail says...

Atkinson, the situation is quite clear. YOU and your cronies find somewhere to put the travellers that reflects their status in, and contribution to, our society. You do not put them in a comfortable sea-side location with all the 'benefits' that this has to offer, you put them somewhere out of the way, with the minimum facilities possible to comply with the law. You do not waste 1 penny of tax payers money than is absolutely necessary, and you keep the electorate happy, as they are the ones who put you where you are. Democracy at work? PAH!
Atkinson, the situation is quite clear. YOU and your cronies find somewhere to put the travellers that reflects their status in, and contribution to, our society. You do not put them in a comfortable sea-side location with all the 'benefits' that this has to offer, you put them somewhere out of the way, with the minimum facilities possible to comply with the law. You do not waste 1 penny of tax payers money than is absolutely necessary, and you keep the electorate happy, as they are the ones who put you where you are. Democracy at work? PAH! Letcommonsenseprevail
  • Score: 18

12:47pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Letcommonsenseprevail says...

Buzetti wrote:
A Summer approaches, this is becoming an emergency. Why not an emergency, temporary solution to cover this Summer? Dedicate the unused park& ride as a 'temporary stopping site' for a 6 month period from 1st April to end of September. That will buy some time to find a permanant solution by this time next year. Otherwise, the open invitation extended to Travellers by Ms. Atkinson of 'no lockdown' will make our parks and car parks no-go areas for our legitimate Council Tax paying communities once again. There is a huge cost to the Borough of removing illegal encampments, plus the lost revenue from occupied car parks and the inability of local residents to make use of facilities such as the Whitecliffe play area.
Park and Ride too close to civilisation - needs to be further away and less comfortable.
[quote][p][bold]Buzetti[/bold] wrote: A Summer approaches, this is becoming an emergency. Why not an emergency, temporary solution to cover this Summer? Dedicate the unused park& ride as a 'temporary stopping site' for a 6 month period from 1st April to end of September. That will buy some time to find a permanant solution by this time next year. Otherwise, the open invitation extended to Travellers by Ms. Atkinson of 'no lockdown' will make our parks and car parks no-go areas for our legitimate Council Tax paying communities once again. There is a huge cost to the Borough of removing illegal encampments, plus the lost revenue from occupied car parks and the inability of local residents to make use of facilities such as the Whitecliffe play area.[/p][/quote]Park and Ride too close to civilisation - needs to be further away and less comfortable. Letcommonsenseprevail
  • Score: 7

12:49pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Letcommonsenseprevail says...

DorsetFerret wrote:
TheDistrict wrote: I still cannot understand Cllr Atkinson's stance on the sacking of Cllr Judy Butt from her cabinet job. Moreso now, when Cllr Atkinson has stated in the Echo pages that she knew that the Creekmoor and Oakdale sites were doomed. Therefore, if that was her thinking on her own part, why did she sack Cllr Butt who was agreeing with her constituents, who if we are honest is why she is a councillor, to support her electorate. I am not saying that Cllr Atkinson should stand herself, although it probably would be better for all, but she should seriously consider, and revoke her sacking of Cllr Butt and reinstate her in the Cabinet. Using carparks will only strike up another scenario we have just seen yesterday over the Creekmoor and Oakdale sites. Is it not time now, as stated by the Poole MP, to get together with the Bournemouth Council and Dorset Council and think on using part of the green belt north of the two towns, such as Matchams, Canford Magna. I bet if a price was put up for the old garden centre along the Parliey Road, and proposals put forward for a travellers site, the people of West Parley would be up in arms and the matter dropped straight away.
Some more common sense comments in the above. The council (as a whole) need to start thinking outside of the box. Yes, follow the suggestion of Robert Syms and talk to other authorities with the same problem but that may be longer term. What's needed now is somewhere for this summer. This needs to be in a low or none residential area or the same thing will happen as in Creekmoor. The options that present themselves around Longham, Canford Magna and the airport should be identified. Alternatively consider under utilised parking in summer. Gravel hill police station = hard standing water etc., Bournemouth University, massive parking area, Homebase Tower Parks, large car park underutilized (some already rented off to local car companies. Vacant land around the twin sails bridge Just a little more original thinking please.
Are you having a laugh? Are you seriously suggesting pandering to these people with a town centre location like 'around the twin sail bridge'?? Have you gone completely mad??
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: I still cannot understand Cllr Atkinson's stance on the sacking of Cllr Judy Butt from her cabinet job. Moreso now, when Cllr Atkinson has stated in the Echo pages that she knew that the Creekmoor and Oakdale sites were doomed. Therefore, if that was her thinking on her own part, why did she sack Cllr Butt who was agreeing with her constituents, who if we are honest is why she is a councillor, to support her electorate. I am not saying that Cllr Atkinson should stand herself, although it probably would be better for all, but she should seriously consider, and revoke her sacking of Cllr Butt and reinstate her in the Cabinet. Using carparks will only strike up another scenario we have just seen yesterday over the Creekmoor and Oakdale sites. Is it not time now, as stated by the Poole MP, to get together with the Bournemouth Council and Dorset Council and think on using part of the green belt north of the two towns, such as Matchams, Canford Magna. I bet if a price was put up for the old garden centre along the Parliey Road, and proposals put forward for a travellers site, the people of West Parley would be up in arms and the matter dropped straight away.[/p][/quote]Some more common sense comments in the above. The council (as a whole) need to start thinking outside of the box. Yes, follow the suggestion of Robert Syms and talk to other authorities with the same problem but that may be longer term. What's needed now is somewhere for this summer. This needs to be in a low or none residential area or the same thing will happen as in Creekmoor. The options that present themselves around Longham, Canford Magna and the airport should be identified. Alternatively consider under utilised parking in summer. Gravel hill police station = hard standing water etc., Bournemouth University, massive parking area, Homebase Tower Parks, large car park underutilized (some already rented off to local car companies. Vacant land around the twin sails bridge Just a little more original thinking please.[/p][/quote]Are you having a laugh? Are you seriously suggesting pandering to these people with a town centre location like 'around the twin sail bridge'?? Have you gone completely mad?? Letcommonsenseprevail
  • Score: -3

12:52pm Fri 21 Mar 14

kalebmoledirt says...

A picture of our Illustrious leader on the entrance of a would be free campsite would scare any traveller off
A picture of our Illustrious leader on the entrance of a would be free campsite would scare any traveller off kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 8

1:05pm Fri 21 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

perhaps there is a bit of sense in using a little bit of the land of the old power station site for this year,, its a big bit of land and I am sure it could be placed away from any houses, just for this year though, as in the long term we hope someone actually builds something on this area.

I am not sure how far Poole, goes, but is the canford magna area part of poole ?
perhaps there is a bit of sense in using a little bit of the land of the old power station site for this year,, its a big bit of land and I am sure it could be placed away from any houses, just for this year though, as in the long term we hope someone actually builds something on this area. I am not sure how far Poole, goes, but is the canford magna area part of poole ? PooleFirst
  • Score: 7

1:05pm Fri 21 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

what about Holten Heath way, is that Poole ?
what about Holten Heath way, is that Poole ? PooleFirst
  • Score: 0

1:07pm Fri 21 Mar 14

justsayithowitis says...

Lots of places for them to stay. They are called camp sites.
Lots of places for them to stay. They are called camp sites. justsayithowitis
  • Score: 19

1:07pm Fri 21 Mar 14

KLH says...

kalebmoledirt wrote:
A picture of our Illustrious leader on the entrance of a would be free campsite would scare any traveller off
Don't wish to speak ill of the dead, but Clarissa Dickson Wright and Margaret Thatcher would be an excellent deterrent with Edwina Currie and Anne Widdecombe straining at their leashes.... Forget Beesley!
[quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: A picture of our Illustrious leader on the entrance of a would be free campsite would scare any traveller off[/p][/quote]Don't wish to speak ill of the dead, but Clarissa Dickson Wright and Margaret Thatcher would be an excellent deterrent with Edwina Currie and Anne Widdecombe straining at their leashes.... Forget Beesley! KLH
  • Score: 1

1:10pm Fri 21 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

but again this all comes back to central government getting off their butts and allowing areas to be shared, Bournemouth, Christchuch and Poole, could build something up around the Airport.
The thing is, if there was a place, and it was a bit out of town, it wouldn't be used anyway, these people want to be right in town, so if they had no choice they would end up just going to another town that hasn't yet implemented one of these transit sites, I think its more of a deterrent than an actual meaningful usable camp.
but again this all comes back to central government getting off their butts and allowing areas to be shared, Bournemouth, Christchuch and Poole, could build something up around the Airport. The thing is, if there was a place, and it was a bit out of town, it wouldn't be used anyway, these people want to be right in town, so if they had no choice they would end up just going to another town that hasn't yet implemented one of these transit sites, I think its more of a deterrent than an actual meaningful usable camp. PooleFirst
  • Score: 5

1:24pm Fri 21 Mar 14

snowflakes says...

The Old Power Station Site needs to be considered for this year.
Off topic , the shocking bullying comments about Judy and drink should not have been passed and printed.
The Old Power Station Site needs to be considered for this year. Off topic , the shocking bullying comments about Judy and drink should not have been passed and printed. snowflakes
  • Score: 6

1:25pm Fri 21 Mar 14

justsayithowitis says...

Remove their ethnic status. Problem solved. http://epetitions.di
rect.gov.uk/petition
s/61822
Remove their ethnic status. Problem solved. http://epetitions.di rect.gov.uk/petition s/61822 justsayithowitis
  • Score: 8

1:27pm Fri 21 Mar 14

rugby_dave says...

PooleFirst wrote:
what about Holten Heath way, is that Poole ?
Holten Heath isn't in the BoP though compaines out there do label it as Holten Heath, Poole! Canford Magna is in Poole tho.
[quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: what about Holten Heath way, is that Poole ?[/p][/quote]Holten Heath isn't in the BoP though compaines out there do label it as Holten Heath, Poole! Canford Magna is in Poole tho. rugby_dave
  • Score: 1

1:36pm Fri 21 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

off topic a bit,, and just a thought,, if they only come here in the summer, where are they all winter ? dont travellers travel in the winter ?
off topic a bit,, and just a thought,, if they only come here in the summer, where are they all winter ? dont travellers travel in the winter ? PooleFirst
  • Score: 6

1:43pm Fri 21 Mar 14

DorsetFerret says...

PooleFirst wrote:
off topic a bit,, and just a thought,, if they only come here in the summer, where are they all winter ? dont travellers travel in the winter ?
Most have gone back to their £400k mansions in Limerick...I kid you not look them up on the web.
[quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: off topic a bit,, and just a thought,, if they only come here in the summer, where are they all winter ? dont travellers travel in the winter ?[/p][/quote]Most have gone back to their £400k mansions in Limerick...I kid you not look them up on the web. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 10

1:45pm Fri 21 Mar 14

ashleycross says...

We are not on the brink of a public order problem. We have a huge long running public order problem.
Will councillor Atkinson be declaring independence from the rest of the country to be able to run her own city state so that she can carry out the above?
In the meantime-no temporary sites mean no way of moving travellers off Poole's open spaces legally.
We are not on the brink of a public order problem. We have a huge long running public order problem. Will councillor Atkinson be declaring independence from the rest of the country to be able to run her own city state so that she can carry out the above? In the meantime-no temporary sites mean no way of moving travellers off Poole's open spaces legally. ashleycross
  • Score: 4

2:01pm Fri 21 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

ashleycross wrote:
We are not on the brink of a public order problem. We have a huge long running public order problem.
Will councillor Atkinson be declaring independence from the rest of the country to be able to run her own city state so that she can carry out the above?
In the meantime-no temporary sites mean no way of moving travellers off Poole's open spaces legally.
you are right and to be fair to Atkinson she was very brave to attempt to get a site, there are absolutely no votes to be gained by building a gypsy site thats for sure, but deep down everyone should see that under the existing laws, it would have been the best solution,, so fair play to her, but in my humble opinion, we shouldn't have any sites.
[quote][p][bold]ashleycross[/bold] wrote: We are not on the brink of a public order problem. We have a huge long running public order problem. Will councillor Atkinson be declaring independence from the rest of the country to be able to run her own city state so that she can carry out the above? In the meantime-no temporary sites mean no way of moving travellers off Poole's open spaces legally.[/p][/quote]you are right and to be fair to Atkinson she was very brave to attempt to get a site, there are absolutely no votes to be gained by building a gypsy site thats for sure, but deep down everyone should see that under the existing laws, it would have been the best solution,, so fair play to her, but in my humble opinion, we shouldn't have any sites. PooleFirst
  • Score: 1

2:03pm Fri 21 Mar 14

muscliffman says...

PooleFirst wrote:
what about Holten Heath way, is that Poole ?
Geographically (including for Royal Mail) the Holton Heath area is firmly in Poole, however in local politics (not a little bit controversially) it comes under and pays Council taxes to Purbeck District Council, not the Borough of Poole. And it also has a long history of difficulties with 'travellers', especially in the Industrial Estates.
[quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: what about Holten Heath way, is that Poole ?[/p][/quote]Geographically (including for Royal Mail) the Holton Heath area is firmly in Poole, however in local politics (not a little bit controversially) it comes under and pays Council taxes to Purbeck District Council, not the Borough of Poole. And it also has a long history of difficulties with 'travellers', especially in the Industrial Estates. muscliffman
  • Score: 0

2:12pm Fri 21 Mar 14

kalebmoledirt says...

Is Elaine Atkinson an undercover traveller?
Is Elaine Atkinson an undercover traveller? kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 0

2:18pm Fri 21 Mar 14

calamity carney says...

kalebmoledirt wrote:
A picture of our Illustrious leader on the entrance of a would be free campsite would scare any traveller off
So you don't like the look of her funny how the way some one looks makes them a bad person at their job. Well how shallow of you I suppose you want some celeb hot tottie to run the show. Bad bad form and disgraceful stereotyping you should be ashamed of yourself!
[quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: A picture of our Illustrious leader on the entrance of a would be free campsite would scare any traveller off[/p][/quote]So you don't like the look of her funny how the way some one looks makes them a bad person at their job. Well how shallow of you I suppose you want some celeb hot tottie to run the show. Bad bad form and disgraceful stereotyping you should be ashamed of yourself! calamity carney
  • Score: 4

2:35pm Fri 21 Mar 14

calamity carney says...

muscliffman wrote:
PooleFirst wrote:
what about Holten Heath way, is that Poole ?
Geographically (including for Royal Mail) the Holton Heath area is firmly in Poole, however in local politics (not a little bit controversially) it comes under and pays Council taxes to Purbeck District Council, not the Borough of Poole. And it also has a long history of difficulties with 'travellers', especially in the Industrial Estates.
Yes the old admiralty building and land has space for the travellers. Now it was owned by the government don't know who owns it now but most people think it would be a perfect solution. Maybe the echo could look into it?
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: what about Holten Heath way, is that Poole ?[/p][/quote]Geographically (including for Royal Mail) the Holton Heath area is firmly in Poole, however in local politics (not a little bit controversially) it comes under and pays Council taxes to Purbeck District Council, not the Borough of Poole. And it also has a long history of difficulties with 'travellers', especially in the Industrial Estates.[/p][/quote]Yes the old admiralty building and land has space for the travellers. Now it was owned by the government don't know who owns it now but most people think it would be a perfect solution. Maybe the echo could look into it? calamity carney
  • Score: 3

2:39pm Fri 21 Mar 14

kalebmoledirt says...

calamity carney wrote:
kalebmoledirt wrote:
A picture of our Illustrious leader on the entrance of a would be free campsite would scare any traveller off
So you don't like the look of her funny how the way some one looks makes them a bad person at their job. Well how shallow of you I suppose you want some celeb hot tottie to run the show. Bad bad form and disgraceful stereotyping you should be ashamed of yourself!
Dolly Parton if you can arrange it please.love her eyes
[quote][p][bold]calamity carney[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: A picture of our Illustrious leader on the entrance of a would be free campsite would scare any traveller off[/p][/quote]So you don't like the look of her funny how the way some one looks makes them a bad person at their job. Well how shallow of you I suppose you want some celeb hot tottie to run the show. Bad bad form and disgraceful stereotyping you should be ashamed of yourself![/p][/quote]Dolly Parton if you can arrange it please.love her eyes kalebmoledirt
  • Score: -4

2:51pm Fri 21 Mar 14

smhinto says...

It will soon be 'Diddley' season again where free parking on any Council car park and immunity from prosecution will be offered to them all.
.
There again if any other member of the public decided to utilise Council car park as camp site I believe that one would be fined instantly.
.
Amazing is'nt how there can be two sets of rules i.e. one for the 'Diddley's' and another for everybody else.
It will soon be 'Diddley' season again where free parking on any Council car park and immunity from prosecution will be offered to them all. . There again if any other member of the public decided to utilise Council car park as camp site I believe that one would be fined instantly. . Amazing is'nt how there can be two sets of rules i.e. one for the 'Diddley's' and another for everybody else. smhinto
  • Score: 11

3:03pm Fri 21 Mar 14

loftusrod says...

PooleFirst wrote:
off topic a bit,, and just a thought,, if they only come here in the summer, where are they all winter ? dont travellers travel in the winter ?
They go home.
And when Underhill says they have nowhere to go, he's wrong, they can go home.
[quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: off topic a bit,, and just a thought,, if they only come here in the summer, where are they all winter ? dont travellers travel in the winter ?[/p][/quote]They go home. And when Underhill says they have nowhere to go, he's wrong, they can go home. loftusrod
  • Score: 9

3:08pm Fri 21 Mar 14

In Absentia says...

I disagree with Mr Underhill. The Police don't excercise their powers for political reasons and not wanting to use their budgets, leaving it to the Councils to pick up the tab. These areas will effectively get closed off as the public won't want to use them whilst these people are there.
I disagree with Mr Underhill. The Police don't excercise their powers for political reasons and not wanting to use their budgets, leaving it to the Councils to pick up the tab. These areas will effectively get closed off as the public won't want to use them whilst these people are there. In Absentia
  • Score: 10

3:28pm Fri 21 Mar 14

dorset_bloke says...

Council offices have a large car park, have a few caravans there..?

If travellers illegally setup camp on land, then impound the vehicles like you would us if we parked up illegally.. or do they have more rights than everyone else?
Council offices have a large car park, have a few caravans there..? If travellers illegally setup camp on land, then impound the vehicles like you would us if we parked up illegally.. or do they have more rights than everyone else? dorset_bloke
  • Score: 6

3:47pm Fri 21 Mar 14

calamity carney says...

kalebmoledirt wrote:
calamity carney wrote:
kalebmoledirt wrote:
A picture of our Illustrious leader on the entrance of a would be free campsite would scare any traveller off
So you don't like the look of her funny how the way some one looks makes them a bad person at their job. Well how shallow of you I suppose you want some celeb hot tottie to run the show. Bad bad form and disgraceful stereotyping you should be ashamed of yourself!
Dolly Parton if you can arrange it please.love her eyes
And you our the type of person supporting Cllr Butt?
[quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]calamity carney[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: A picture of our Illustrious leader on the entrance of a would be free campsite would scare any traveller off[/p][/quote]So you don't like the look of her funny how the way some one looks makes them a bad person at their job. Well how shallow of you I suppose you want some celeb hot tottie to run the show. Bad bad form and disgraceful stereotyping you should be ashamed of yourself![/p][/quote]Dolly Parton if you can arrange it please.love her eyes[/p][/quote]And you our the type of person supporting Cllr Butt? calamity carney
  • Score: 3

4:07pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Jo__Go says...

Atkinson the Dud says “It isn’t illegal to be a traveller and the government has no plans to outlaw being a traveller, so they have rights in law like the rest of us do."
Yes they do ... but they appear to have rights that we don't, like non-prosecution for criminal damage. At bottom, this whole debate is about fairness. No-one would mind travellers exercising their right to travel, if only they also stepped up to their responsibilities around respect for the law, for others' property, and common human decency.
A number of posters talk about 'prejudice' - it's not prejudice when you've stood in a recently vacated field helping other locals to clean up household waste, nappies, human faeces, and the detritus that is the by-product of the travellers 'gainful employment'.
A change in the law is long overdue.
Atkinson the Dud says “It isn’t illegal to be a traveller and the government has no plans to outlaw being a traveller, so they have rights in law like the rest of us do." Yes they do ... but they appear to have rights that we don't, like non-prosecution for criminal damage. At bottom, this whole debate is about fairness. No-one would mind travellers exercising their right to travel, if only they also stepped up to their responsibilities around respect for the law, for others' property, and common human decency. A number of posters talk about 'prejudice' - it's not prejudice when you've stood in a recently vacated field helping other locals to clean up household waste, nappies, human faeces, and the detritus that is the by-product of the travellers 'gainful employment'. A change in the law is long overdue. Jo__Go
  • Score: 10

4:51pm Fri 21 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

Jo__Go wrote:
Atkinson the Dud says “It isn’t illegal to be a traveller and the government has no plans to outlaw being a traveller, so they have rights in law like the rest of us do."
Yes they do ... but they appear to have rights that we don't, like non-prosecution for criminal damage. At bottom, this whole debate is about fairness. No-one would mind travellers exercising their right to travel, if only they also stepped up to their responsibilities around respect for the law, for others' property, and common human decency.
A number of posters talk about 'prejudice' - it's not prejudice when you've stood in a recently vacated field helping other locals to clean up household waste, nappies, human faeces, and the detritus that is the by-product of the travellers 'gainful employment'.
A change in the law is long overdue.
yes,, agree with most of all that.

Trouble is as always the local council has to work within what central government and the law says, its always at local level we end up with the problems caused by national politics,, and we always blame the local politicians/councill
ors, probably a bit unfair, but probably why government like it that way,, keeps us off moaning at them.
[quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: Atkinson the Dud says “It isn’t illegal to be a traveller and the government has no plans to outlaw being a traveller, so they have rights in law like the rest of us do." Yes they do ... but they appear to have rights that we don't, like non-prosecution for criminal damage. At bottom, this whole debate is about fairness. No-one would mind travellers exercising their right to travel, if only they also stepped up to their responsibilities around respect for the law, for others' property, and common human decency. A number of posters talk about 'prejudice' - it's not prejudice when you've stood in a recently vacated field helping other locals to clean up household waste, nappies, human faeces, and the detritus that is the by-product of the travellers 'gainful employment'. A change in the law is long overdue.[/p][/quote]yes,, agree with most of all that. Trouble is as always the local council has to work within what central government and the law says, its always at local level we end up with the problems caused by national politics,, and we always blame the local politicians/councill ors, probably a bit unfair, but probably why government like it that way,, keeps us off moaning at them. PooleFirst
  • Score: 4

4:53pm Fri 21 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

PooleFirst wrote:
Jo__Go wrote:
Atkinson the Dud says “It isn’t illegal to be a traveller and the government has no plans to outlaw being a traveller, so they have rights in law like the rest of us do."
Yes they do ... but they appear to have rights that we don't, like non-prosecution for criminal damage. At bottom, this whole debate is about fairness. No-one would mind travellers exercising their right to travel, if only they also stepped up to their responsibilities around respect for the law, for others' property, and common human decency.
A number of posters talk about 'prejudice' - it's not prejudice when you've stood in a recently vacated field helping other locals to clean up household waste, nappies, human faeces, and the detritus that is the by-product of the travellers 'gainful employment'.
A change in the law is long overdue.
yes,, agree with most of all that.

Trouble is as always the local council has to work within what central government and the law says, its always at local level we end up with the problems caused by national politics,, and we always blame the local politicians/councill

ors, probably a bit unfair, but probably why government like it that way,, keeps us off moaning at them.
and,
to be fair to Any leader, from any political party, (at local level) they are always going to be the ones that get it from all of us when I suspect they are just trying to do whats best, bit of an uphill battle I suspect when you have no real power to make the changes that are really required
[quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: Atkinson the Dud says “It isn’t illegal to be a traveller and the government has no plans to outlaw being a traveller, so they have rights in law like the rest of us do." Yes they do ... but they appear to have rights that we don't, like non-prosecution for criminal damage. At bottom, this whole debate is about fairness. No-one would mind travellers exercising their right to travel, if only they also stepped up to their responsibilities around respect for the law, for others' property, and common human decency. A number of posters talk about 'prejudice' - it's not prejudice when you've stood in a recently vacated field helping other locals to clean up household waste, nappies, human faeces, and the detritus that is the by-product of the travellers 'gainful employment'. A change in the law is long overdue.[/p][/quote]yes,, agree with most of all that. Trouble is as always the local council has to work within what central government and the law says, its always at local level we end up with the problems caused by national politics,, and we always blame the local politicians/councill ors, probably a bit unfair, but probably why government like it that way,, keeps us off moaning at them.[/p][/quote]and, to be fair to Any leader, from any political party, (at local level) they are always going to be the ones that get it from all of us when I suspect they are just trying to do whats best, bit of an uphill battle I suspect when you have no real power to make the changes that are really required PooleFirst
  • Score: 3

4:59pm Fri 21 Mar 14

PooleFirst says...

and while I am in this very "fair" mood,, who would you actually replace Atkinson with ? most councillors wouldn't want the job if you gave it to them as its always the leader that gets all the stick, The liberals didnt want it, thats why they voted for her to be leader.
Very difficult job, and rubbish pay.
and while I am in this very "fair" mood,, who would you actually replace Atkinson with ? most councillors wouldn't want the job if you gave it to them as its always the leader that gets all the stick, The liberals didnt want it, thats why they voted for her to be leader. Very difficult job, and rubbish pay. PooleFirst
  • Score: 1

5:04pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Dr Strangelove says...

Jo__Go wrote:
Atkinson the Dud says “It isn’t illegal to be a traveller and the government has no plans to outlaw being a traveller, so they have rights in law like the rest of us do."
Yes they do ... but they appear to have rights that we don't, like non-prosecution for criminal damage. At bottom, this whole debate is about fairness. No-one would mind travellers exercising their right to travel, if only they also stepped up to their responsibilities around respect for the law, for others' property, and common human decency.
A number of posters talk about 'prejudice' - it's not prejudice when you've stood in a recently vacated field helping other locals to clean up household waste, nappies, human faeces, and the detritus that is the by-product of the travellers 'gainful employment'.
A change in the law is long overdue.
article 61 magna carta. You and I have the same choices as them. It also has nothing to do with the human rights act so don't let your local MPs say it is. This is a British issue on British soil governed by a British act. If you want the (law) Magna Carta changed good luck with that one. As for the mess yes not good.
[quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: Atkinson the Dud says “It isn’t illegal to be a traveller and the government has no plans to outlaw being a traveller, so they have rights in law like the rest of us do." Yes they do ... but they appear to have rights that we don't, like non-prosecution for criminal damage. At bottom, this whole debate is about fairness. No-one would mind travellers exercising their right to travel, if only they also stepped up to their responsibilities around respect for the law, for others' property, and common human decency. A number of posters talk about 'prejudice' - it's not prejudice when you've stood in a recently vacated field helping other locals to clean up household waste, nappies, human faeces, and the detritus that is the by-product of the travellers 'gainful employment'. A change in the law is long overdue.[/p][/quote]article 61 magna carta. You and I have the same choices as them. It also has nothing to do with the human rights act so don't let your local MPs say it is. This is a British issue on British soil governed by a British act. If you want the (law) Magna Carta changed good luck with that one. As for the mess yes not good. Dr Strangelove
  • Score: 4

5:09pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Plumber64 says...

Perhaps send the Council leader round one scary looking Lady !!!!!
Perhaps send the Council leader round one scary looking Lady !!!!! Plumber64
  • Score: 0

5:09pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Dr Strangelove says...

Dr Strangelove wrote:
Jo__Go wrote:
Atkinson the Dud says “It isn’t illegal to be a traveller and the government has no plans to outlaw being a traveller, so they have rights in law like the rest of us do."
Yes they do ... but they appear to have rights that we don't, like non-prosecution for criminal damage. At bottom, this whole debate is about fairness. No-one would mind travellers exercising their right to travel, if only they also stepped up to their responsibilities around respect for the law, for others' property, and common human decency.
A number of posters talk about 'prejudice' - it's not prejudice when you've stood in a recently vacated field helping other locals to clean up household waste, nappies, human faeces, and the detritus that is the by-product of the travellers 'gainful employment'.
A change in the law is long overdue.
article 61 magna carta. You and I have the same choices as them. It also has nothing to do with the human rights act so don't let your local MPs say it is. This is a British issue on British soil governed by a British act. If you want the (law) Magna Carta changed good luck with that one. As for the mess yes not good.
English act
[quote][p][bold]Dr Strangelove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: Atkinson the Dud says “It isn’t illegal to be a traveller and the government has no plans to outlaw being a traveller, so they have rights in law like the rest of us do." Yes they do ... but they appear to have rights that we don't, like non-prosecution for criminal damage. At bottom, this whole debate is about fairness. No-one would mind travellers exercising their right to travel, if only they also stepped up to their responsibilities around respect for the law, for others' property, and common human decency. A number of posters talk about 'prejudice' - it's not prejudice when you've stood in a recently vacated field helping other locals to clean up household waste, nappies, human faeces, and the detritus that is the by-product of the travellers 'gainful employment'. A change in the law is long overdue.[/p][/quote]article 61 magna carta. You and I have the same choices as them. It also has nothing to do with the human rights act so don't let your local MPs say it is. This is a British issue on British soil governed by a British act. If you want the (law) Magna Carta changed good luck with that one. As for the mess yes not good.[/p][/quote]English act Dr Strangelove
  • Score: 2

5:09pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Jo__Go says...

PooleFirst wrote:
and while I am in this very "fair" mood,, who would you actually replace Atkinson with ? most councillors wouldn't want the job if you gave it to them as its always the leader that gets all the stick, The liberals didnt want it, thats why they voted for her to be leader.
Very difficult job, and rubbish pay.
I suspect Chubby Eades would jump at it once his mayoral year is over... Gawd help us!
[quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: and while I am in this very "fair" mood,, who would you actually replace Atkinson with ? most councillors wouldn't want the job if you gave it to them as its always the leader that gets all the stick, The liberals didnt want it, thats why they voted for her to be leader. Very difficult job, and rubbish pay.[/p][/quote]I suspect Chubby Eades would jump at it once his mayoral year is over... Gawd help us! Jo__Go
  • Score: 5

5:10pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Dr Strangelove says...

Plumber64 wrote:
Perhaps send the Council leader round one scary looking Lady !!!!!
Yes some ones look clearly makes them bad at their job.
[quote][p][bold]Plumber64[/bold] wrote: Perhaps send the Council leader round one scary looking Lady !!!!![/p][/quote]Yes some ones look clearly makes them bad at their job. Dr Strangelove
  • Score: 0

5:43pm Fri 21 Mar 14

cunone says...

Are we all missing the obvious
Travellers come looking for work they said so during the planning process of Creekmoor. They keep coming in greater numbers because they find work. Everyone who employes a traveller to lop a tree, clear a garden or lay a path is guilty of encouraging these economic migrants. Employ local tradespeople who pay tax here and contribute to the local economy. Ask for id when people knock at your door looking to fix your fence. The Travellers will soon learn they are not welcome and eventually will go where they find work.
They must laugh at us on one hand employing them so they stay then falling out with each other because no one wants a Traveller site near them
Are we all missing the obvious Travellers come looking for work they said so during the planning process of Creekmoor. They keep coming in greater numbers because they find work. Everyone who employes a traveller to lop a tree, clear a garden or lay a path is guilty of encouraging these economic migrants. Employ local tradespeople who pay tax here and contribute to the local economy. Ask for id when people knock at your door looking to fix your fence. The Travellers will soon learn they are not welcome and eventually will go where they find work. They must laugh at us on one hand employing them so they stay then falling out with each other because no one wants a Traveller site near them cunone
  • Score: 11

6:41pm Fri 21 Mar 14

mimi55 says...

N Smith wrote:
DorsetFerret wrote:
Message for Police Commissioner Underhill.

Quote -Dorset Police and Crime Commissioner Martyn Underhill said: "Unless an alternative site exists, the Police cannot use their powers under Section 62A to move the travellers on.

Pray tell Mr Underhill, why not? They seem clear to me.

The Police may activate their powers under section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to require gypsies/travellers to leave.

The Police are able to activate these powers where they are satisfied that two or more more people are trespassing on the land, and the landowner has taken reasonable steps to make them leave (and they have failed to do so). In addition, one of the following also has to apply:

•damage has been caused to the land or property, or

•threatening / abusive / insulting behaviour has been used against the occupier, his family or agent.

I'd be interested to know the answer.
The Police are weak and scared of the travellers , as for Underhill what a waste of money.
Hear, hear! I believe the police did stir themselves to lock up a dreadful
troublemaker from West Howe a couple of years ago - she was a grandmother who had taken issue with a teenager who had been harrassing her. The teenager reported this traumatising incident to the police, and they bravely rushed in, arrested the grandmother, and threw her
in a cell overnight.. Now if only the Travellers were all elderly women....
[quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: Message for Police Commissioner Underhill. Quote -Dorset Police and Crime Commissioner Martyn Underhill said: "Unless an alternative site exists, the Police cannot use their powers under Section 62A to move the travellers on. Pray tell Mr Underhill, why not? They seem clear to me. The Police may activate their powers under section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to require gypsies/travellers to leave. The Police are able to activate these powers where they are satisfied that two or more more people are trespassing on the land, and the landowner has taken reasonable steps to make them leave (and they have failed to do so). In addition, one of the following also has to apply: •damage has been caused to the land or property, or •threatening / abusive / insulting behaviour has been used against the occupier, his family or agent. I'd be interested to know the answer.[/p][/quote]The Police are weak and scared of the travellers , as for Underhill what a waste of money.[/p][/quote]Hear, hear! I believe the police did stir themselves to lock up a dreadful troublemaker from West Howe a couple of years ago - she was a grandmother who had taken issue with a teenager who had been harrassing her. The teenager reported this traumatising incident to the police, and they bravely rushed in, arrested the grandmother, and threw her in a cell overnight.. Now if only the Travellers were all elderly women.... mimi55
  • Score: 6

7:15pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

How nice to see sensible posts on this topic. Shame there are still one or two who insist on being nasty and personal - spoils it for everyone. I'm sure Judy Butt is aware of what's been said but is being the bigger person by ignoring them. It's also cowardly if you don't say these nasty things to a person's face and also hide your identity behind a screen name.
........
There must be empty, hard surfaced areas around Poole that already have a water supply that could be used as temporary places for this year. The Park and Ride, while a big mistake, isn't suitable because there's no water supply besides the facts that it's in the green belt and the council took money from the government for it and it can't be used for anything else.
..........
Or perhaps renting from a developer who has land designated for residential use, but which he is waiting for the ideal time to apply for planning permission could be a possibility.
How nice to see sensible posts on this topic. Shame there are still one or two who insist on being nasty and personal - spoils it for everyone. I'm sure Judy Butt is aware of what's been said but is being the bigger person by ignoring them. It's also cowardly if you don't say these nasty things to a person's face and also hide your identity behind a screen name. ........ There must be empty, hard surfaced areas around Poole that already have a water supply that could be used as temporary places for this year. The Park and Ride, while a big mistake, isn't suitable because there's no water supply besides the facts that it's in the green belt and the council took money from the government for it and it can't be used for anything else. .......... Or perhaps renting from a developer who has land designated for residential use, but which he is waiting for the ideal time to apply for planning permission could be a possibility. Carolyn43
  • Score: 0

7:24pm Fri 21 Mar 14

calamity carney says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
How nice to see sensible posts on this topic. Shame there are still one or two who insist on being nasty and personal - spoils it for everyone. I'm sure Judy Butt is aware of what's been said but is being the bigger person by ignoring them. It's also cowardly if you don't say these nasty things to a person's face and also hide your identity behind a screen name.
........
There must be empty, hard surfaced areas around Poole that already have a water supply that could be used as temporary places for this year. The Park and Ride, while a big mistake, isn't suitable because there's no water supply besides the facts that it's in the green belt and the council took money from the government for it and it can't be used for anything else.
..........
Or perhaps renting from a developer who has land designated for residential use, but which he is waiting for the ideal time to apply for planning permission could be a possibility.
Yes the admiralty site at holton heath. Its the perfect solution just don't know who owns it now it was the government I believe.
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: How nice to see sensible posts on this topic. Shame there are still one or two who insist on being nasty and personal - spoils it for everyone. I'm sure Judy Butt is aware of what's been said but is being the bigger person by ignoring them. It's also cowardly if you don't say these nasty things to a person's face and also hide your identity behind a screen name. ........ There must be empty, hard surfaced areas around Poole that already have a water supply that could be used as temporary places for this year. The Park and Ride, while a big mistake, isn't suitable because there's no water supply besides the facts that it's in the green belt and the council took money from the government for it and it can't be used for anything else. .......... Or perhaps renting from a developer who has land designated for residential use, but which he is waiting for the ideal time to apply for planning permission could be a possibility.[/p][/quote]Yes the admiralty site at holton heath. Its the perfect solution just don't know who owns it now it was the government I believe. calamity carney
  • Score: 8

7:44pm Fri 21 Mar 14

fireflier says...

Poole Council, along with all the other Bodies, should be 'working their socks off' to get a change in UK law on this subject.

These 'travellers' are not an ethnic group worthy of any special attention. They are, by and large, a body of scroungers who seek to gain not just something, but everything, for nothing.

The law should be amended so they come under the same rules as all the rest of us and have to pay their way just as we do!
Poole Council, along with all the other Bodies, should be 'working their socks off' to get a change in UK law on this subject. These 'travellers' are not an ethnic group worthy of any special attention. They are, by and large, a body of scroungers who seek to gain not just something, but everything, for nothing. The law should be amended so they come under the same rules as all the rest of us and have to pay their way just as we do! fireflier
  • Score: 6

7:47pm Fri 21 Mar 14

RM says...

Here's a question for Cllr Atkinson - why can't we have lockdowns where its's possible to have them? We pay our Council Tax, we employ both Cllrs & Council Officials no matter how much they refuse to admit it - how about we call the shots for a change? Corfe Mullen had a lockdown last year - no illegal camps. Seems to me both the police & Councils are happier to pander to the travellers than to work on behalf of the people who pay their salaries & leave us to sufferthe inconviences & pick up the bill afterwards. Time for a change I think.
Here's a question for Cllr Atkinson - why can't we have lockdowns where its's possible to have them? We pay our Council Tax, we employ both Cllrs & Council Officials no matter how much they refuse to admit it - how about we call the shots for a change? Corfe Mullen had a lockdown last year - no illegal camps. Seems to me both the police & Councils are happier to pander to the travellers than to work on behalf of the people who pay their salaries & leave us to sufferthe inconviences & pick up the bill afterwards. Time for a change I think. RM
  • Score: 4

7:48pm Fri 21 Mar 14

cromwell9 says...

THe Irish government banned the travellers,in their country,so they came over here,.Ireland is in the EU ,so why cant we do the same
THE LIB DEMS AND LABOUR wont support a ban ,
They love thee minority groups,Above the hard working BRIT.
These to partys are out to destroy our beloved country ,by uncontrolled immigration.
The British way of live,in 30 yrs will be gone,
No more short skirts etc
So at the next election think before you put your x on a ballot paper,else you might be getting more of the same.
THe Irish government banned the travellers,in their country,so they came over here,.Ireland is in the EU ,so why cant we do the same THE LIB DEMS AND LABOUR wont support a ban , They love thee minority groups,Above the hard working BRIT. These to partys are out to destroy our beloved country ,by uncontrolled immigration. The British way of live,in 30 yrs will be gone, No more short skirts etc So at the next election think before you put your x on a ballot paper,else you might be getting more of the same. cromwell9
  • Score: 1

7:53pm Fri 21 Mar 14

cromwell9 says...

fireflier wrote:
Poole Council, along with all the other Bodies, should be 'working their socks off' to get a change in UK law on this subject.

These 'travellers' are not an ethnic group worthy of any special attention. They are, by and large, a body of scroungers who seek to gain not just something, but everything, for nothing.

The law should be amended so they come under the same rules as all the rest of us and have to pay their way just as we do!
The LIB DEMS/LABOUR would never support a change in the law,
They love these kind of people,
[quote][p][bold]fireflier[/bold] wrote: Poole Council, along with all the other Bodies, should be 'working their socks off' to get a change in UK law on this subject. These 'travellers' are not an ethnic group worthy of any special attention. They are, by and large, a body of scroungers who seek to gain not just something, but everything, for nothing. The law should be amended so they come under the same rules as all the rest of us and have to pay their way just as we do![/p][/quote]The LIB DEMS/LABOUR would never support a change in the law, They love these kind of people, cromwell9
  • Score: 0

7:57pm Fri 21 Mar 14

cromwell9 says...

cunone wrote:
Are we all missing the obvious
Travellers come looking for work they said so during the planning process of Creekmoor. They keep coming in greater numbers because they find work. Everyone who employes a traveller to lop a tree, clear a garden or lay a path is guilty of encouraging these economic migrants. Employ local tradespeople who pay tax here and contribute to the local economy. Ask for id when people knock at your door looking to fix your fence. The Travellers will soon learn they are not welcome and eventually will go where they find work.
They must laugh at us on one hand employing them so they stay then falling out with each other because no one wants a Traveller site near them
I would make COLD CALLING a criminal offence,
[quote][p][bold]cunone[/bold] wrote: Are we all missing the obvious Travellers come looking for work they said so during the planning process of Creekmoor. They keep coming in greater numbers because they find work. Everyone who employes a traveller to lop a tree, clear a garden or lay a path is guilty of encouraging these economic migrants. Employ local tradespeople who pay tax here and contribute to the local economy. Ask for id when people knock at your door looking to fix your fence. The Travellers will soon learn they are not welcome and eventually will go where they find work. They must laugh at us on one hand employing them so they stay then falling out with each other because no one wants a Traveller site near them[/p][/quote]I would make COLD CALLING a criminal offence, cromwell9
  • Score: 5

8:01pm Fri 21 Mar 14

cromwell9 says...

dorset_bloke wrote:
Council offices have a large car park, have a few caravans there..?

If travellers illegally setup camp on land, then impound the vehicles like you would us if we parked up illegally.. or do they have more rights than everyone else?
You bet they do.
ITS CALLED THE RACE CARD
[quote][p][bold]dorset_bloke[/bold] wrote: Council offices have a large car park, have a few caravans there..? If travellers illegally setup camp on land, then impound the vehicles like you would us if we parked up illegally.. or do they have more rights than everyone else?[/p][/quote]You bet they do. ITS CALLED THE RACE CARD cromwell9
  • Score: 1

8:09pm Fri 21 Mar 14

cromwell9 says...

loftusrod wrote:
PooleFirst wrote:
off topic a bit,, and just a thought,, if they only come here in the summer, where are they all winter ? dont travellers travel in the winter ?
They go home.
And when Underhill says they have nowhere to go, he's wrong, they can go home.
They go back to their POSH HOUSES in Western Ireland and live like we do.
They made enough money over here in the summer to do nothing but drink and fight in the winter.
Then they come back over in April ,and do it all over again ,
Nice when you can do and go where you like for free ,making there ill gotten gains,
ThePoice are scared of them ,In case they are acused of being racist.
ITS HOPLESS.
The LIB DEMS?LABOUR< LOVE these people,THEY would never support a change in the law ,to kerb these peoples activitys
[quote][p][bold]loftusrod[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: off topic a bit,, and just a thought,, if they only come here in the summer, where are they all winter ? dont travellers travel in the winter ?[/p][/quote]They go home. And when Underhill says they have nowhere to go, he's wrong, they can go home.[/p][/quote]They go back to their POSH HOUSES in Western Ireland and live like we do. They made enough money over here in the summer to do nothing but drink and fight in the winter. Then they come back over in April ,and do it all over again , Nice when you can do and go where you like for free ,making there ill gotten gains, ThePoice are scared of them ,In case they are acused of being racist. ITS HOPLESS. The LIB DEMS?LABOUR< LOVE these people,THEY would never support a change in the law ,to kerb these peoples activitys cromwell9
  • Score: -2

8:17pm Fri 21 Mar 14

cromwell9 says...

Ash_69 wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
I still cannot understand Cllr Atkinson's stance on the sacking of Cllr Judy Butt from her cabinet job. Moreso now, when Cllr Atkinson has stated in the Echo pages that she knew that the Creekmoor and Oakdale sites were doomed. Therefore, if that was her thinking on her own part, why did she sack Cllr Butt who was agreeing with her constituents, who if we are honest is why she is a councillor, to support her electorate. I am not saying that Cllr Atkinson should stand herself, although it probably would be better for all, but she should seriously consider, and revoke her sacking of Cllr Butt and reinstate her in the Cabinet.

Using carparks will only strike up another scenario we have just seen yesterday over the Creekmoor and Oakdale sites. Is it not time now, as stated by the Poole MP, to get together with the Bournemouth Council and Dorset Council and think on using part of the green belt north of the two towns, such as Matchams, Canford Magna. I bet if a price was put up for the old garden centre along the Parliey Road, and proposals put forward for a travellers site, the people of West Parley would be up in arms and the matter dropped straight away.
Alas, some of the sites you mention are not in the Borough of Poole. This is what the current limitations of the law dictates.

East Dorset have sorted themselves out with temporary places for the Summer and so will be able to use the Section 62A to move them on. But if they cross into Poole, then eviction at cost each time is the only way to go.

Another reason to have one big borough as there then opens up more spaces to move them too.
YOU, are dreaming
THEY WONT USE IT ,Because they will have to register ,and pay Council tax,
[quote][p][bold]Ash_69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: I still cannot understand Cllr Atkinson's stance on the sacking of Cllr Judy Butt from her cabinet job. Moreso now, when Cllr Atkinson has stated in the Echo pages that she knew that the Creekmoor and Oakdale sites were doomed. Therefore, if that was her thinking on her own part, why did she sack Cllr Butt who was agreeing with her constituents, who if we are honest is why she is a councillor, to support her electorate. I am not saying that Cllr Atkinson should stand herself, although it probably would be better for all, but she should seriously consider, and revoke her sacking of Cllr Butt and reinstate her in the Cabinet. Using carparks will only strike up another scenario we have just seen yesterday over the Creekmoor and Oakdale sites. Is it not time now, as stated by the Poole MP, to get together with the Bournemouth Council and Dorset Council and think on using part of the green belt north of the two towns, such as Matchams, Canford Magna. I bet if a price was put up for the old garden centre along the Parliey Road, and proposals put forward for a travellers site, the people of West Parley would be up in arms and the matter dropped straight away.[/p][/quote]Alas, some of the sites you mention are not in the Borough of Poole. This is what the current limitations of the law dictates. East Dorset have sorted themselves out with temporary places for the Summer and so will be able to use the Section 62A to move them on. But if they cross into Poole, then eviction at cost each time is the only way to go. Another reason to have one big borough as there then opens up more spaces to move them too.[/p][/quote]YOU, are dreaming THEY WONT USE IT ,Because they will have to register ,and pay Council tax, cromwell9
  • Score: -3

8:18pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Dr Strangelove says...

cromwell9 wrote:
THe Irish government banned the travellers,in their country,so they came over here,.Ireland is in the EU ,so why cant we do the same
THE LIB DEMS AND LABOUR wont support a ban ,
They love thee minority groups,Above the hard working BRIT.
These to partys are out to destroy our beloved country ,by uncontrolled immigration.
The British way of live,in 30 yrs will be gone,
No more short skirts etc
So at the next election think before you put your x on a ballot paper,else you might be getting more of the same.
Yes England has article 61 of the magna carta!
[quote][p][bold]cromwell9[/bold] wrote: THe Irish government banned the travellers,in their country,so they came over here,.Ireland is in the EU ,so why cant we do the same THE LIB DEMS AND LABOUR wont support a ban , They love thee minority groups,Above the hard working BRIT. These to partys are out to destroy our beloved country ,by uncontrolled immigration. The British way of live,in 30 yrs will be gone, No more short skirts etc So at the next election think before you put your x on a ballot paper,else you might be getting more of the same.[/p][/quote]Yes England has article 61 of the magna carta! Dr Strangelove
  • Score: 1

8:49pm Fri 21 Mar 14

ashleycross says...

Easy CPO creekmore and knock as much of it down as you need to make a site!
Easy CPO creekmore and knock as much of it down as you need to make a site! ashleycross
  • Score: -7

8:51pm Fri 21 Mar 14

ashleycross says...

DorsetFerret wrote:
Message for Police Commissioner Underhill.

Quote -Dorset Police and Crime Commissioner Martyn Underhill said: &quot;Unless an alternative site exists, the Police cannot use their powers under Section 62A to move the travellers on.

Pray tell Mr Underhill, why not? They seem clear to me.

The Police may activate their powers under section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to require gypsies/travellers to leave.

The Police are able to activate these powers where they are satisfied that two or more more people are trespassing on the land, and the landowner has taken reasonable steps to make them leave (and they have failed to do so). In addition, one of the following also has to apply:

•damage has been caused to the land or property, or

•threatening / abusive / insulting behaviour has been used against the occupier, his family or agent.

I'd be interested to know the answer.
For heavens sake-they are clever enough not to cause damage or threaten the occupier(which is the council)
I suggest you try another web browser for your internet legal advice. Perhaps an advanced search with a total b......s filter would be a good start.
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: Message for Police Commissioner Underhill. Quote -Dorset Police and Crime Commissioner Martyn Underhill said: "Unless an alternative site exists, the Police cannot use their powers under Section 62A to move the travellers on. Pray tell Mr Underhill, why not? They seem clear to me. The Police may activate their powers under section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to require gypsies/travellers to leave. The Police are able to activate these powers where they are satisfied that two or more more people are trespassing on the land, and the landowner has taken reasonable steps to make them leave (and they have failed to do so). In addition, one of the following also has to apply: •damage has been caused to the land or property, or •threatening / abusive / insulting behaviour has been used against the occupier, his family or agent. I'd be interested to know the answer.[/p][/quote]For heavens sake-they are clever enough not to cause damage or threaten the occupier(which is the council) I suggest you try another web browser for your internet legal advice. Perhaps an advanced search with a total b......s filter would be a good start. ashleycross
  • Score: -5

9:02pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Hobad1 says...

Seriously.....if you want to get rid of these travellers, just send along this troll of a council leader as soon as they turn up. One look at it, and even the most hardened of travellers will up sticks and run back to Ireland retelling the story of the time they were confronted by "the Goblin of the South".
Seriously.....if you want to get rid of these travellers, just send along this troll of a council leader as soon as they turn up. One look at it, and even the most hardened of travellers will up sticks and run back to Ireland retelling the story of the time they were confronted by "the Goblin of the South". Hobad1
  • Score: -2

9:09pm Fri 21 Mar 14

canfordcherry says...

The worrying thing for me, apart from the fact that the invasion is coming, is the amount of 'work' they are possibly going to pick up from elderly residents who may not have sorted their tree branch's/fences etc. after the storms. Once the word is spread through their community that there is easy pickings here there may be even more than we anticipate on our doorsteps waiting to line their pockets with shoddy work.
The worrying thing for me, apart from the fact that the invasion is coming, is the amount of 'work' they are possibly going to pick up from elderly residents who may not have sorted their tree branch's/fences etc. after the storms. Once the word is spread through their community that there is easy pickings here there may be even more than we anticipate on our doorsteps waiting to line their pockets with shoddy work. canfordcherry
  • Score: 3

9:11pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Dr Strangelove says...

Hobad1 wrote:
Seriously.....if you want to get rid of these travellers, just send along this troll of a council leader as soon as they turn up. One look at it, and even the most hardened of travellers will up sticks and run back to Ireland retelling the story of the time they were confronted by &quot;the Goblin of the South".
Did you vote for Cameron the handsome at the last gen election. Sounds like you vote for celebs and just proves that Cameron is an X FACTOR PM all puff and spin.
[quote][p][bold]Hobad1[/bold] wrote: Seriously.....if you want to get rid of these travellers, just send along this troll of a council leader as soon as they turn up. One look at it, and even the most hardened of travellers will up sticks and run back to Ireland retelling the story of the time they were confronted by "the Goblin of the South".[/p][/quote]Did you vote for Cameron the handsome at the last gen election. Sounds like you vote for celebs and just proves that Cameron is an X FACTOR PM all puff and spin. Dr Strangelove
  • Score: 2

9:19pm Fri 21 Mar 14

DorsetFerret says...

ashleycross wrote:
DorsetFerret wrote:
Message for Police Commissioner Underhill.

Quote -Dorset Police and Crime Commissioner Martyn Underhill said: &quot;Unless an alternative site exists, the Police cannot use their powers under Section 62A to move the travellers on.

Pray tell Mr Underhill, why not? They seem clear to me.

The Police may activate their powers under section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to require gypsies/travellers to leave.

The Police are able to activate these powers where they are satisfied that two or more more people are trespassing on the land, and the landowner has taken reasonable steps to make them leave (and they have failed to do so). In addition, one of the following also has to apply:

•damage has been caused to the land or property, or

•threatening / abusive / insulting behaviour has been used against the occupier, his family or agent.

I'd be interested to know the answer.
For heavens sake-they are clever enough not to cause damage or threaten the occupier(which is the council)
I suggest you try another web browser for your internet legal advice. Perhaps an advanced search with a total b......s filter would be a good start.
Tosh! There are two word in this statement that makes life difficult. 'Reasonable steps' . A catch all for the legal profession. Who defines what is reasonable? Get rid of that and you won't have a problem If you can't win a debate without stooping to sarcasm, don't bother posting.
[quote][p][bold]ashleycross[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: Message for Police Commissioner Underhill. Quote -Dorset Police and Crime Commissioner Martyn Underhill said: "Unless an alternative site exists, the Police cannot use their powers under Section 62A to move the travellers on. Pray tell Mr Underhill, why not? They seem clear to me. The Police may activate their powers under section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to require gypsies/travellers to leave. The Police are able to activate these powers where they are satisfied that two or more more people are trespassing on the land, and the landowner has taken reasonable steps to make them leave (and they have failed to do so). In addition, one of the following also has to apply: •damage has been caused to the land or property, or •threatening / abusive / insulting behaviour has been used against the occupier, his family or agent. I'd be interested to know the answer.[/p][/quote]For heavens sake-they are clever enough not to cause damage or threaten the occupier(which is the council) I suggest you try another web browser for your internet legal advice. Perhaps an advanced search with a total b......s filter would be a good start.[/p][/quote]Tosh! There are two word in this statement that makes life difficult. 'Reasonable steps' . A catch all for the legal profession. Who defines what is reasonable? Get rid of that and you won't have a problem If you can't win a debate without stooping to sarcasm, don't bother posting. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 7

10:54pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Yankee1 says...

The Civic Centre car park would work a treat. Lay on portapotties, Elsans, and Grundins galore.

The Mayor can park his limo at his home.
The Civic Centre car park would work a treat. Lay on portapotties, Elsans, and Grundins galore. The Mayor can park his limo at his home. Yankee1
  • Score: 0

6:12am Sat 22 Mar 14

manyogie says...

This is probably a dumb statement, could`nt all the high risk areas have a local by-law forbidding overnight stays?
This is probably a dumb statement, could`nt all the high risk areas have a local by-law forbidding overnight stays? manyogie
  • Score: -1

6:47am Sat 22 Mar 14

kalebmoledirt says...

calamity carney wrote:
kalebmoledirt wrote:
calamity carney wrote:
kalebmoledirt wrote:
A picture of our Illustrious leader on the entrance of a would be free campsite would scare any traveller off
So you don't like the look of her funny how the way some one looks makes them a bad person at their job. Well how shallow of you I suppose you want some celeb hot tottie to run the show. Bad bad form and disgraceful stereotyping you should be ashamed of yourself!
Dolly Parton if you can arrange it please.love her eyes
And you our the type of person supporting Cllr Butt?
Very fragrant.Not a bad choice.go for it
[quote][p][bold]calamity carney[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]calamity carney[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: A picture of our Illustrious leader on the entrance of a would be free campsite would scare any traveller off[/p][/quote]So you don't like the look of her funny how the way some one looks makes them a bad person at their job. Well how shallow of you I suppose you want some celeb hot tottie to run the show. Bad bad form and disgraceful stereotyping you should be ashamed of yourself![/p][/quote]Dolly Parton if you can arrange it please.love her eyes[/p][/quote]And you our the type of person supporting Cllr Butt?[/p][/quote]Very fragrant.Not a bad choice.go for it kalebmoledirt
  • Score: -5

8:20am Sat 22 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

manyogie wrote:
This is probably a dumb statement, could`nt all the high risk areas have a local by-law forbidding overnight stays?
Correct, it is a dumb statement.
[quote][p][bold]manyogie[/bold] wrote: This is probably a dumb statement, could`nt all the high risk areas have a local by-law forbidding overnight stays?[/p][/quote]Correct, it is a dumb statement. tbpoole
  • Score: 0

9:11am Sat 22 Mar 14

ADST_2008 says...

Quote from story above ....

On the Judy Butt issue – the Creekmoor ward councillor who was sacked from her cabinet position after refusing to back the cabinet’s stance on the traveller sites – Cllr Atkinson says she had no regrets.

She added: “That was not a personal decision shot from the hip. It was well thought out and taken under advice.”

Under advice from who? Cllr. Atkinson thats who
Quote from story above .... On the Judy Butt issue – the Creekmoor ward councillor who was sacked from her cabinet position after refusing to back the cabinet’s stance on the traveller sites – Cllr Atkinson says she had no regrets. She added: “That was not a personal decision shot from the hip. It was well thought out and taken under advice.” Under advice from who? Cllr. Atkinson thats who ADST_2008
  • Score: 1

9:57am Sat 22 Mar 14

carrrob says...

The gippos must be already picking the sites they will target this summer now knowing the council bottled the transit site.
Stick them on the park and ride nobody else uses it!
The gippos must be already picking the sites they will target this summer now knowing the council bottled the transit site. Stick them on the park and ride nobody else uses it! carrrob
  • Score: -2

11:54am Sat 22 Mar 14

Jo__Go says...

carrrob wrote:
The gippos must be already picking the sites they will target this summer now knowing the council bottled the transit site.
Stick them on the park and ride nobody else uses it!
Stick them in your garden if you like them that much...
[quote][p][bold]carrrob[/bold] wrote: The gippos must be already picking the sites they will target this summer now knowing the council bottled the transit site. Stick them on the park and ride nobody else uses it![/p][/quote]Stick them in your garden if you like them that much... Jo__Go
  • Score: 2

11:56am Sat 22 Mar 14

ADST_2008 says...

Jo__Go wrote:
carrrob wrote: The gippos must be already picking the sites they will target this summer now knowing the council bottled the transit site. Stick them on the park and ride nobody else uses it!
Stick them in your garden if you like them that much...
DORSET’S Rallye Sunseeker uses the Park and Ride bringing much needed business to the town, unlike our Traveller Freinds.
[quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]carrrob[/bold] wrote: The gippos must be already picking the sites they will target this summer now knowing the council bottled the transit site. Stick them on the park and ride nobody else uses it![/p][/quote]Stick them in your garden if you like them that much...[/p][/quote]DORSET’S Rallye Sunseeker uses the Park and Ride bringing much needed business to the town, unlike our Traveller Freinds. ADST_2008
  • Score: 1

12:00pm Sat 22 Mar 14

ADST_2008 says...

ADST_2008 wrote:
Jo__Go wrote:
carrrob wrote: The gippos must be already picking the sites they will target this summer now knowing the council bottled the transit site. Stick them on the park and ride nobody else uses it!
Stick them in your garden if you like them that much...
DORSET’S Rallye Sunseeker uses the Park and Ride bringing much needed business to the town, unlike our Traveller Freinds.
I think this was an idea (Rallye Sunseeker) of the recently sacked portfolio holder bringing them from Bournemouth to Poole.
[quote][p][bold]ADST_2008[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]carrrob[/bold] wrote: The gippos must be already picking the sites they will target this summer now knowing the council bottled the transit site. Stick them on the park and ride nobody else uses it![/p][/quote]Stick them in your garden if you like them that much...[/p][/quote]DORSET’S Rallye Sunseeker uses the Park and Ride bringing much needed business to the town, unlike our Traveller Freinds.[/p][/quote]I think this was an idea (Rallye Sunseeker) of the recently sacked portfolio holder bringing them from Bournemouth to Poole. ADST_2008
  • Score: 3

1:26am Sun 23 Mar 14

RM says...

canfordcherry wrote:
The worrying thing for me, apart from the fact that the invasion is coming, is the amount of 'work' they are possibly going to pick up from elderly residents who may not have sorted their tree branch's/fences etc. after the storms. Once the word is spread through their community that there is easy pickings here there may be even more than we anticipate on our doorsteps waiting to line their pockets with shoddy work.
Perhaps one of the things all the local Councils SHOULD be doing is to run an advice column about NOT giving work to cold callers, companies whose flyers have no business address and/or whose only contact is by mobile phone?
[quote][p][bold]canfordcherry[/bold] wrote: The worrying thing for me, apart from the fact that the invasion is coming, is the amount of 'work' they are possibly going to pick up from elderly residents who may not have sorted their tree branch's/fences etc. after the storms. Once the word is spread through their community that there is easy pickings here there may be even more than we anticipate on our doorsteps waiting to line their pockets with shoddy work.[/p][/quote]Perhaps one of the things all the local Councils SHOULD be doing is to run an advice column about NOT giving work to cold callers, companies whose flyers have no business address and/or whose only contact is by mobile phone? RM
  • Score: 4

12:50pm Sun 23 Mar 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

Maybe our MP Robert Syms would be doing better if he tried to actually get the law changed so that travellers are not treated better than the rates payers in the constituencies that they disrupt. That is the real problem, I pay £1,300 in council tax but I am sure that if I bought a caravan and parked it on Branksome Rec it would do doubt be quickly towed away and scrapped. Maybe Mr Syms should start working for his Poole constituents instead of trying to please his friends in Bournemouth!

As for Elaine Atkinson stating the sacking of Cllr Butt was nothing personal, that has to be the best joke of the day. Maybe our council leader would like to tell the taxpayers of Poole just exactly how much money was wasted trying to force through that transit site at Safety Drive, which you sacked Cllr Butt for being against it!

Personally I think the wrong person got the sack over that particular mess up and you do owe her a public apology at the very least.
Maybe our MP Robert Syms would be doing better if he tried to actually get the law changed so that travellers are not treated better than the rates payers in the constituencies that they disrupt. That is the real problem, I pay £1,300 in council tax but I am sure that if I bought a caravan and parked it on Branksome Rec it would do doubt be quickly towed away and scrapped. Maybe Mr Syms should start working for his Poole constituents instead of trying to please his friends in Bournemouth! As for Elaine Atkinson stating the sacking of Cllr Butt was nothing personal, that has to be the best joke of the day. Maybe our council leader would like to tell the taxpayers of Poole just exactly how much money was wasted trying to force through that transit site at Safety Drive, which you sacked Cllr Butt for being against it! Personally I think the wrong person got the sack over that particular mess up and you do owe her a public apology at the very least. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 0

5:45pm Sun 23 Mar 14

Big Man 2 says...

Mad Karew wrote:
DorsetFerret wrote:
hadvar wrote:
Let's assume for a minute that a 'transit site' will be helpful because it'll provide somewhere for them to be 'moved on' to. And let's also assume that what is written above where they look at parking facilites as potential sites is true as well. Where is there a large, almost completely unused parking facility? Sorry once again Creekmorians, if there really does have to be a camp, there is one simple answer.....
Let's try and clear this up once and for all. If the council were able to use the Creekmoor Park and Ride they would have done so. My understanding is that when they accepted government funding to tarmac this green-field site they also agreed to terms and conditions that restricted it's use as a park and ride only. They cannot use it.
Absolutely correct. There are a couple of under-used car parks in Poole which could be used but guess whose ward they are in...............
There is a very underused car park at Penn Hill crossroads, and another at Canford Cliffs opposite the library, oh dear ! They are in Atkinson's ward !

Incidentally Penn Hill was in the final five sites out the 90 sites supposedly assessed.
[quote][p][bold]Mad Karew[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hadvar[/bold] wrote: Let's assume for a minute that a 'transit site' will be helpful because it'll provide somewhere for them to be 'moved on' to. And let's also assume that what is written above where they look at parking facilites as potential sites is true as well. Where is there a large, almost completely unused parking facility? Sorry once again Creekmorians, if there really does have to be a camp, there is one simple answer.....[/p][/quote]Let's try and clear this up once and for all. If the council were able to use the Creekmoor Park and Ride they would have done so. My understanding is that when they accepted government funding to tarmac this green-field site they also agreed to terms and conditions that restricted it's use as a park and ride only. They cannot use it.[/p][/quote]Absolutely correct. There are a couple of under-used car parks in Poole which could be used but guess whose ward they are in...............[/p][/quote]There is a very underused car park at Penn Hill crossroads, and another at Canford Cliffs opposite the library, oh dear ! They are in Atkinson's ward ! Incidentally Penn Hill was in the final five sites out the 90 sites supposedly assessed. Big Man 2
  • Score: 1

5:54pm Sun 23 Mar 14

Big Man 2 says...

PooleFirst wrote:
ashleycross wrote:
We are not on the brink of a public order problem. We have a huge long running public order problem.
Will councillor Atkinson be declaring independence from the rest of the country to be able to run her own city state so that she can carry out the above?
In the meantime-no temporary sites mean no way of moving travellers off Poole's open spaces legally.
you are right and to be fair to Atkinson she was very brave to attempt to get a site, there are absolutely no votes to be gained by building a gypsy site thats for sure, but deep down everyone should see that under the existing laws, it would have been the best solution,, so fair play to her, but in my humble opinion, we shouldn't have any sites.
But there are votes to be gained by keeping them out of her ward !
[quote][p][bold]PooleFirst[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ashleycross[/bold] wrote: We are not on the brink of a public order problem. We have a huge long running public order problem. Will councillor Atkinson be declaring independence from the rest of the country to be able to run her own city state so that she can carry out the above? In the meantime-no temporary sites mean no way of moving travellers off Poole's open spaces legally.[/p][/quote]you are right and to be fair to Atkinson she was very brave to attempt to get a site, there are absolutely no votes to be gained by building a gypsy site thats for sure, but deep down everyone should see that under the existing laws, it would have been the best solution,, so fair play to her, but in my humble opinion, we shouldn't have any sites.[/p][/quote]But there are votes to be gained by keeping them out of her ward ! Big Man 2
  • Score: 1

5:57pm Sun 23 Mar 14

Big Man 2 says...

hadvar wrote:
Let's assume for a minute that a 'transit site' will be helpful because it'll provide somewhere for them to be 'moved on' to. And let's also assume that what is written above where they look at parking facilites as potential sites is true as well. Where is there a large, almost completely unused parking facility? Sorry once again Creekmorians, if there really does have to be a camp, there is one simple answer.....
Yes had are how about on your doorstep !!
[quote][p][bold]hadvar[/bold] wrote: Let's assume for a minute that a 'transit site' will be helpful because it'll provide somewhere for them to be 'moved on' to. And let's also assume that what is written above where they look at parking facilites as potential sites is true as well. Where is there a large, almost completely unused parking facility? Sorry once again Creekmorians, if there really does have to be a camp, there is one simple answer.....[/p][/quote]Yes had are how about on your doorstep !! Big Man 2
  • 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