Poole council criticised for not protecting ‘vulnerable’ Hamworthy Park from traveller camp

Bournemouth Echo: 'NIGHTMARE' Travellers on site 'NIGHTMARE' Travellers on site

THE residents who look after Hamworthy Park say the first traveller incursion to ever happen there is a “nightmare”.

A councillor has now called for a permanent site and Poole council will be returning to court to evict the new camp.

Eight caravans and one motorhome moved onto popular Hamworthy Park on Sunday evening, while an additional three caravans were driven onto the recreation ground at Turlin Moor, just over a mile away, close to the same time.

“This is our worst nightmare,” said Pat Bullock, chairman of the Friends of Hamworthy Park of the first invasion by travellers on to the popular Green Flag park, which hosts the borough’s only paddling pool.

And she hit out at the council for not protecting the vulnerable park. “They have never bothered with the park. This is always something we have feared.”

She said she always complained about the access gate being left unlocked, but the travellers had taken out a post and used the emergency exit at the car park to drive across the grass to the eastern end of the park.

“They must think they are on the Costa del Sol with the paddling pool and the sea,” she said.

Cllr Judy Butt, who lost her cabinet portfolio post in February after standing up for residents opposing a summer traveller transit site in her Creekmoor ward, said it was essential that a permanent site was found.

“The concerns and fears of residents are clearly understood regarding the latest incursions,” she said. “It is imperative that we in Poole council effect the planned open space protection proposals immediately and further consideration be given to other areas, such as Hamworthy Park and Turlin Rec for improved protections.

“However, these incursions will never be resolved without a permanent transit site and all energies should be directed towards achieving this.

The failed TSP (temporary stopping place) proposals would not have provided for the number of caravans involved.”

Peter Haikin, regulatory services manager, Borough of Poole, said: “Officers have visited both sites today, and Direction Orders were served to the group currently at Hamworthy Park. If they do not move on we will aim to take this matter to court on Wednesday.

“The groups previously camped at Baiter Car Park and Hatchard’s Field both moved on over the weekend.

“Hatchard’s Field was left clean and tidy, while a clean-up to remove the small amount of domestic refuse left at Baiter has been arranged.”

Comments have been opened on this story but please note: any reference to gypsies or any racially offensive term will cause them to be closed and you may find your account suspended. Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers are legally recognised as ethnic groups, and protected by the Race Relations Act. Please keep your comments to this particular incident and do not generalise. Thanks for your co-operation.

Comments (66)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:50am Tue 20 May 14

we-shall-see says...

Judy Butt makes me laugh - she fought vociferously against having the TSP in her own ward, yet is happy that it should be somewhere else within the Borough. What a hypocrite!

As for the council asking the travellers to leave or they "will go to Court on Wednesday" - what a joke! They made illegal entry, so why have the council given them 48 hours notice to quit? They should have taken it to court on Monday and ejected them right away!!
Judy Butt makes me laugh - she fought vociferously against having the TSP in her own ward, yet is happy that it should be somewhere else within the Borough. What a hypocrite! As for the council asking the travellers to leave or they "will go to Court on Wednesday" - what a joke! They made illegal entry, so why have the council given them 48 hours notice to quit? They should have taken it to court on Monday and ejected them right away!! we-shall-see
  • Score: 47

6:55am Tue 20 May 14

ashleycross says...

http://www.gypsy-tra
veller.org/your-righ
ts/evictions/unautho
rised-encampments/
This will help Poole Council with getting the court action right.
http://www.gypsy-tra veller.org/your-righ ts/evictions/unautho rised-encampments/ This will help Poole Council with getting the court action right. ashleycross
  • Score: 7

7:13am Tue 20 May 14

poolebabe says...

The transit sites planned, were not big enough for this group. So how does it make it easier to move them, if there is not enough room to accommodate them?
The transit sites planned, were not big enough for this group. So how does it make it easier to move them, if there is not enough room to accommodate them? poolebabe
  • Score: 17

7:29am Tue 20 May 14

DemonDiva says...

It was interesting coming home along Canford Avenue last night - and the big white boulders had been laid all along the grassy areas. It looks absolutely dreadful.

Just how much do those boulders cost Bournemouth Council?

And do they seriously think that those boulders will stop determined travellers with JCB's?
It was interesting coming home along Canford Avenue last night - and the big white boulders had been laid all along the grassy areas. It looks absolutely dreadful. Just how much do those boulders cost Bournemouth Council? And do they seriously think that those boulders will stop determined travellers with JCB's? DemonDiva
  • Score: 11

7:36am Tue 20 May 14

JustForPoole says...

DemonDiva wrote:
It was interesting coming home along Canford Avenue last night - and the big white boulders had been laid all along the grassy areas. It looks absolutely dreadful.

Just how much do those boulders cost Bournemouth Council?

And do they seriously think that those boulders will stop determined travellers with JCB's?
They are probably polystyrene ... like we used to have inflateable tanks in the war so the Germans thought we had thousands !!!!!
[quote][p][bold]DemonDiva[/bold] wrote: It was interesting coming home along Canford Avenue last night - and the big white boulders had been laid all along the grassy areas. It looks absolutely dreadful. Just how much do those boulders cost Bournemouth Council? And do they seriously think that those boulders will stop determined travellers with JCB's?[/p][/quote]They are probably polystyrene ... like we used to have inflateable tanks in the war so the Germans thought we had thousands !!!!! JustForPoole
  • Score: 8

7:41am Tue 20 May 14

Rockley66 says...

The Police have powers to remove these people. Section 61 Criminal Justice Public Order Act 1994, provides police with a power to remove travellers if there are more than six vehicles, or if criminal damage has been caused. They cut the padlock, causing damage. Other UK forces use and enforce this power, Dorset Police do not. The travellers are quiet open about this and comment that this is why they stay in the county of Dorset, knowing that it is not used. I would encourage residents to contact both the Chief Constable and newly appointed Police and Crime Commissioner to ask why they are not using powers given to them by government.
The Police have powers to remove these people. Section 61 Criminal Justice Public Order Act 1994, provides police with a power to remove travellers if there are more than six vehicles, or if criminal damage has been caused. They cut the padlock, causing damage. Other UK forces use and enforce this power, Dorset Police do not. The travellers are quiet open about this and comment that this is why they stay in the county of Dorset, knowing that it is not used. I would encourage residents to contact both the Chief Constable and newly appointed Police and Crime Commissioner to ask why they are not using powers given to them by government. Rockley66
  • Score: 64

7:42am Tue 20 May 14

MMM444 says...

Fabulous site, nice view's, together with its own open air toilet, with built in Bidet, and all for nowt, Poole Council your a joke, cant see any parents wanting to see there children anywhere near that paddling pool, resign the whole lot of you, overpaid hopeless baffoons
Fabulous site, nice view's, together with its own open air toilet, with built in Bidet, and all for nowt, Poole Council your a joke, cant see any parents wanting to see there children anywhere near that paddling pool, resign the whole lot of you, overpaid hopeless baffoons MMM444
  • Score: 56

7:45am Tue 20 May 14

JustForPoole says...

Rockley66 wrote:
The Police have powers to remove these people. Section 61 Criminal Justice Public Order Act 1994, provides police with a power to remove travellers if there are more than six vehicles, or if criminal damage has been caused. They cut the padlock, causing damage. Other UK forces use and enforce this power, Dorset Police do not. The travellers are quiet open about this and comment that this is why they stay in the county of Dorset, knowing that it is not used. I would encourage residents to contact both the Chief Constable and newly appointed Police and Crime Commissioner to ask why they are not using powers given to them by government.
They Police have the powers .... but are "spineless" !!! The Crime Commissioner becomes invisible at this time of the year ... also "spineless" !!!
[quote][p][bold]Rockley66[/bold] wrote: The Police have powers to remove these people. Section 61 Criminal Justice Public Order Act 1994, provides police with a power to remove travellers if there are more than six vehicles, or if criminal damage has been caused. They cut the padlock, causing damage. Other UK forces use and enforce this power, Dorset Police do not. The travellers are quiet open about this and comment that this is why they stay in the county of Dorset, knowing that it is not used. I would encourage residents to contact both the Chief Constable and newly appointed Police and Crime Commissioner to ask why they are not using powers given to them by government.[/p][/quote]They Police have the powers .... but are "spineless" !!! The Crime Commissioner becomes invisible at this time of the year ... also "spineless" !!! JustForPoole
  • Score: 47

8:00am Tue 20 May 14

adspacebroker says...

Its because Poole Council always think they know better, but sadly some of the officers will not admit they are not experts and that is why we get confronted with this and many other elements of chaos in Poole, like traffic congestion and dodgy bridges.
Its because Poole Council always think they know better, but sadly some of the officers will not admit they are not experts and that is why we get confronted with this and many other elements of chaos in Poole, like traffic congestion and dodgy bridges. adspacebroker
  • Score: 20

8:02am Tue 20 May 14

Shogun50 says...

SO COME ON THEN POLICE - USE THOSE POWERS AND REMOVE THESE PEOPLE, OR IS IT TRUE THAT YOU ARE SPINELES. I am going to park in the middle of Whitecliffe and if I have to remove boulders or cut a lock with bolt croppers or remove posts, then I expect NOT to be prosecuted. Thank you
SO COME ON THEN POLICE - USE THOSE POWERS AND REMOVE THESE PEOPLE, OR IS IT TRUE THAT YOU ARE SPINELES. I am going to park in the middle of Whitecliffe and if I have to remove boulders or cut a lock with bolt croppers or remove posts, then I expect NOT to be prosecuted. Thank you Shogun50
  • Score: 39

8:21am Tue 20 May 14

Carolyn43 says...

we-shall-see wrote:
Judy Butt makes me laugh - she fought vociferously against having the TSP in her own ward, yet is happy that it should be somewhere else within the Borough. What a hypocrite!

As for the council asking the travellers to leave or they "will go to Court on Wednesday" - what a joke! They made illegal entry, so why have the council given them 48 hours notice to quit? They should have taken it to court on Monday and ejected them right away!!
Judy Butt did not fight vociferously against the TSP because it was in her own ward. She and very many others were against it because it was totally unsuitable according to government requirements for such a site, because of that would not have been used by the travellers and was not big enough to cater for all of the travellers in the town at the same time, so would not have solved the problem. Therefore it would have been a total waste of council tax payers' money and fortunately the council's Planning Committee agreed.

I wouldn't have been surprised if it had gone ahead to see the travellers going to court to get it legally stated that it was unsuitable so they didn't have to use it. They know the laws in their favour better than we do.

It's just a shame that the council wasted money getting the planning application prepared when they knew the sites were unsuitable. If you look at the final submitted planning reports for each site, all the way through the many reasons against them are listed but for each one the comment is basically "but we don't care". They were the reasons the Planning Committee rejected them.

The council have already been looking for a suitable site for some time and have come up with none. In the last attempt, I don't know if they were looking for a Temporary Stopping Place (which requires less facilities) or a full Transit Site, but if you look at the list of 18 sites considered for the TSP by the council, you will see why they were considered unsuitable. If Creekmoor and Oakdale really were the best they could find, then there isn't anywhere.

The only solution is a change in the law.
[quote][p][bold]we-shall-see[/bold] wrote: Judy Butt makes me laugh - she fought vociferously against having the TSP in her own ward, yet is happy that it should be somewhere else within the Borough. What a hypocrite! As for the council asking the travellers to leave or they "will go to Court on Wednesday" - what a joke! They made illegal entry, so why have the council given them 48 hours notice to quit? They should have taken it to court on Monday and ejected them right away!![/p][/quote]Judy Butt did not fight vociferously against the TSP because it was in her own ward. She and very many others were against it because it was totally unsuitable according to government requirements for such a site, because of that would not have been used by the travellers and was not big enough to cater for all of the travellers in the town at the same time, so would not have solved the problem. Therefore it would have been a total waste of council tax payers' money and fortunately the council's Planning Committee agreed. I wouldn't have been surprised if it had gone ahead to see the travellers going to court to get it legally stated that it was unsuitable so they didn't have to use it. They know the laws in their favour better than we do. It's just a shame that the council wasted money getting the planning application prepared when they knew the sites were unsuitable. If you look at the final submitted planning reports for each site, all the way through the many reasons against them are listed but for each one the comment is basically "but we don't care". They were the reasons the Planning Committee rejected them. The council have already been looking for a suitable site for some time and have come up with none. In the last attempt, I don't know if they were looking for a Temporary Stopping Place (which requires less facilities) or a full Transit Site, but if you look at the list of 18 sites considered for the TSP by the council, you will see why they were considered unsuitable. If Creekmoor and Oakdale really were the best they could find, then there isn't anywhere. The only solution is a change in the law. Carolyn43
  • Score: 2

8:28am Tue 20 May 14

shaft says...

Where have the good old days gone when you would greet your new neighbours with a homemade cake or give out afternoon tea invites.
Where have the good old days gone when you would greet your new neighbours with a homemade cake or give out afternoon tea invites. shaft
  • Score: -10

9:27am Tue 20 May 14

BarrHumbug says...

shaft wrote:
Where have the good old days gone when you would greet your new neighbours with a homemade cake or give out afternoon tea invites.
It all stopped when they nicked the kettle ;)
[quote][p][bold]shaft[/bold] wrote: Where have the good old days gone when you would greet your new neighbours with a homemade cake or give out afternoon tea invites.[/p][/quote]It all stopped when they nicked the kettle ;) BarrHumbug
  • Score: 45

9:40am Tue 20 May 14

nickynoodah says...

Oh no not boulders
that's the last thing you wanted was boulders
I cant believe they put boulders
what happens next
the council down there to evict stinky nobath the knobdirt
who has crawled underneath to reside you know.
Oh no not boulders that's the last thing you wanted was boulders I cant believe they put boulders what happens next the council down there to evict stinky nobath the knobdirt who has crawled underneath to reside you know. nickynoodah
  • Score: -16

9:53am Tue 20 May 14

Dave2207 says...

These 'campers' cost local taxpayers a considerable sum of money, every year. There must be some way of recovering this expense from the perpetrators of this unlawful occupation. Why should local taxpayers be burdened with this expense?
These 'campers' obviously have assets (most of their pockets are probably stuffed with cash) and bills should be raised against them, with seizures of assets to pay for the expenses incurred by the council-tax payers.
Further damages should be sought for the mental stress caused by their anti-social behaviour.
These 'campers' cost local taxpayers a considerable sum of money, every year. There must be some way of recovering this expense from the perpetrators of this unlawful occupation. Why should local taxpayers be burdened with this expense? These 'campers' obviously have assets (most of their pockets are probably stuffed with cash) and bills should be raised against them, with seizures of assets to pay for the expenses incurred by the council-tax payers. Further damages should be sought for the mental stress caused by their anti-social behaviour. Dave2207
  • Score: 24

10:22am Tue 20 May 14

fairandsquared says...

Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.
Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on. fairandsquared
  • Score: -20

10:34am Tue 20 May 14

TheDistrict says...

we-shall-see wrote:
Judy Butt makes me laugh - she fought vociferously against having the TSP in her own ward, yet is happy that it should be somewhere else within the Borough. What a hypocrite!

As for the council asking the travellers to leave or they "will go to Court on Wednesday" - what a joke! They made illegal entry, so why have the council given them 48 hours notice to quit? They should have taken it to court on Monday and ejected them right away!!
Another first comment without the fact. Judy Butt stood for her constituents in opposing the Creekmore sites, which if one had read the facts was only proposed for 4 and 12 or 16 caravans plots, thus only being TSPs meant that other caravans draining down on Dorset would have to take up illegal sites, and according to the rules would not be moved as the TSPs were occupied.

Having a permanent site large enough to take the main influx of travellers would be much better for all. It would also help if the Dorset County Council gets down off their high horse and realise that Poole and Bournemouth although on their own as far as councils go, do not have the space for such sites asked for by the governement, therefore MPs such as Connor Burns, Tobias Ellwood, Richard Drax, Annette Brookes etc, should be pushing DCC to open up and hand over land that Dorset can use as a PCS.

I do feel sorry for Hamworthy Park Friends, the paddling pool will have to be emptied (in fact I would do that now). I can see the little tikes urinating and doing all sorts in the water.

Poole and Bournemouth Council and the Dorset Police, grow a spine and use it. Sections 8 and 61 enforce the no camping rule, use it to your advantage.
[quote][p][bold]we-shall-see[/bold] wrote: Judy Butt makes me laugh - she fought vociferously against having the TSP in her own ward, yet is happy that it should be somewhere else within the Borough. What a hypocrite! As for the council asking the travellers to leave or they "will go to Court on Wednesday" - what a joke! They made illegal entry, so why have the council given them 48 hours notice to quit? They should have taken it to court on Monday and ejected them right away!![/p][/quote]Another first comment without the fact. Judy Butt stood for her constituents in opposing the Creekmore sites, which if one had read the facts was only proposed for 4 and 12 or 16 caravans plots, thus only being TSPs meant that other caravans draining down on Dorset would have to take up illegal sites, and according to the rules would not be moved as the TSPs were occupied. Having a permanent site large enough to take the main influx of travellers would be much better for all. It would also help if the Dorset County Council gets down off their high horse and realise that Poole and Bournemouth although on their own as far as councils go, do not have the space for such sites asked for by the governement, therefore MPs such as Connor Burns, Tobias Ellwood, Richard Drax, Annette Brookes etc, should be pushing DCC to open up and hand over land that Dorset can use as a PCS. I do feel sorry for Hamworthy Park Friends, the paddling pool will have to be emptied (in fact I would do that now). I can see the little tikes urinating and doing all sorts in the water. Poole and Bournemouth Council and the Dorset Police, grow a spine and use it. Sections 8 and 61 enforce the no camping rule, use it to your advantage. TheDistrict
  • Score: 10

11:10am Tue 20 May 14

Tony Trent says...

poolebabe wrote:
The transit sites planned, were not big enough for this group. So how does it make it easier to move them, if there is not enough room to accommodate them?
Though you can never say for certain how they would have responded, but 9 of the 20 (from the Echo report that I first read) that appeared on Sunday night would have been evicted to the TSP a week ago. They may or may not have stayed there (the suggestion was they would have left te Borough rather than have been told where to go), but as there is a "no return this season" clause they could not have re-appeared this week at the new sites. That would have left 11 - so still within the 16 places that were propsed. All the hand wringing about containing the travelers rather than going down the hardline and illegal road does not get away from the basic facts, a permanant site or a temporary stopping place within the Borough boundary is the best option available for Poole. Pity that naked NIMBYism stopped the most suitable site from being used as a first step. If we had been able to secure a couple more TSPs we would be well on the way to managing this annual problem - which by the way pre-dates the EU and Human Rights Act. The difference then was the greater availability of unused land - and much of Poole was owned by a family that accomodated them. In some parts of Poole we are already doing our bit to accomodate the wider traveller community, something conveniently ignored by those in other areas who plead victimisation, so time to stop whigeing about what is or isn't being done, accept we are where we are within our ancient law, and help rather than hinder a solution.
[quote][p][bold]poolebabe[/bold] wrote: The transit sites planned, were not big enough for this group. So how does it make it easier to move them, if there is not enough room to accommodate them?[/p][/quote]Though you can never say for certain how they would have responded, but 9 of the 20 (from the Echo report that I first read) that appeared on Sunday night would have been evicted to the TSP a week ago. They may or may not have stayed there (the suggestion was they would have left te Borough rather than have been told where to go), but as there is a "no return this season" clause they could not have re-appeared this week at the new sites. That would have left 11 - so still within the 16 places that were propsed. All the hand wringing about containing the travelers rather than going down the hardline and illegal road does not get away from the basic facts, a permanant site or a temporary stopping place within the Borough boundary is the best option available for Poole. Pity that naked NIMBYism stopped the most suitable site from being used as a first step. If we had been able to secure a couple more TSPs we would be well on the way to managing this annual problem - which by the way pre-dates the EU and Human Rights Act. The difference then was the greater availability of unused land - and much of Poole was owned by a family that accomodated them. In some parts of Poole we are already doing our bit to accomodate the wider traveller community, something conveniently ignored by those in other areas who plead victimisation, so time to stop whigeing about what is or isn't being done, accept we are where we are within our ancient law, and help rather than hinder a solution. Tony Trent
  • Score: 0

11:30am Tue 20 May 14

Tony Trent says...

Rockley66 wrote:
The Police have powers to remove these people. Section 61 Criminal Justice Public Order Act 1994, provides police with a power to remove travellers if there are more than six vehicles, or if criminal damage has been caused. They cut the padlock, causing damage. Other UK forces use and enforce this power, Dorset Police do not. The travellers are quiet open about this and comment that this is why they stay in the county of Dorset, knowing that it is not used. I would encourage residents to contact both the Chief Constable and newly appointed Police and Crime Commissioner to ask why they are not using powers given to them by government.
The advice was that there are very few circumstances under which you can use Section 61 WITHOUT a permanant site or TSP, otherwise it would likely be being used as a first resort already. If there are FACTS that can be presented, with back up information, that can be looked at properly, I would be happy, as the appropriate Scrutiny Chair, to get them looked at and scrutinised when this Summer's experiences are reviewed in he Autumn. Sniping annonimously in a forum will not get anything changed, active engagement, armed with facts, just might!
[quote][p][bold]Rockley66[/bold] wrote: The Police have powers to remove these people. Section 61 Criminal Justice Public Order Act 1994, provides police with a power to remove travellers if there are more than six vehicles, or if criminal damage has been caused. They cut the padlock, causing damage. Other UK forces use and enforce this power, Dorset Police do not. The travellers are quiet open about this and comment that this is why they stay in the county of Dorset, knowing that it is not used. I would encourage residents to contact both the Chief Constable and newly appointed Police and Crime Commissioner to ask why they are not using powers given to them by government.[/p][/quote]The advice was that there are very few circumstances under which you can use Section 61 WITHOUT a permanant site or TSP, otherwise it would likely be being used as a first resort already. If there are FACTS that can be presented, with back up information, that can be looked at properly, I would be happy, as the appropriate Scrutiny Chair, to get them looked at and scrutinised when this Summer's experiences are reviewed in he Autumn. Sniping annonimously in a forum will not get anything changed, active engagement, armed with facts, just might! Tony Trent
  • Score: -1

12:50pm Tue 20 May 14

smhinto says...

shaft wrote:
Where have the good old days gone when you would greet your new neighbours with a homemade cake or give out afternoon tea invites.
And the fact that they leave their own excrement everywhere, harass people for no apparent and justifiable reason, persistantly use fowl language, consistantly steal from people and are apparently immune from legal prosecution.
.
So if you want to make tea for them and hand out cakes to these social
mis-fits then feel free. The above highlights why the majority of people would not be so hospitable.
[quote][p][bold]shaft[/bold] wrote: Where have the good old days gone when you would greet your new neighbours with a homemade cake or give out afternoon tea invites.[/p][/quote]And the fact that they leave their own excrement everywhere, harass people for no apparent and justifiable reason, persistantly use fowl language, consistantly steal from people and are apparently immune from legal prosecution. . So if you want to make tea for them and hand out cakes to these social mis-fits then feel free. The above highlights why the majority of people would not be so hospitable. smhinto
  • Score: 9

1:00pm Tue 20 May 14

Mad Karew says...

Tony Trent wrote:
poolebabe wrote:
The transit sites planned, were not big enough for this group. So how does it make it easier to move them, if there is not enough room to accommodate them?
Though you can never say for certain how they would have responded, but 9 of the 20 (from the Echo report that I first read) that appeared on Sunday night would have been evicted to the TSP a week ago. They may or may not have stayed there (the suggestion was they would have left te Borough rather than have been told where to go), but as there is a "no return this season" clause they could not have re-appeared this week at the new sites. That would have left 11 - so still within the 16 places that were propsed. All the hand wringing about containing the travelers rather than going down the hardline and illegal road does not get away from the basic facts, a permanant site or a temporary stopping place within the Borough boundary is the best option available for Poole. Pity that naked NIMBYism stopped the most suitable site from being used as a first step. If we had been able to secure a couple more TSPs we would be well on the way to managing this annual problem - which by the way pre-dates the EU and Human Rights Act. The difference then was the greater availability of unused land - and much of Poole was owned by a family that accomodated them. In some parts of Poole we are already doing our bit to accomodate the wider traveller community, something conveniently ignored by those in other areas who plead victimisation, so time to stop whigeing about what is or isn't being done, accept we are where we are within our ancient law, and help rather than hinder a solution.
Your right about the most suitable site, which was the Beach Road car park and was discounted because it happens to be in the Council Leader's ward!!

You obviously weren't listening to your own council's planning committee which after a long discussion agreed the Creekmoor and Oakdale sites were not viable for residential use. It wasn't about Nimbyism - it was a carefully considered planning decision - or can't Poole's planning committee be trusted to make a good decision?
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]poolebabe[/bold] wrote: The transit sites planned, were not big enough for this group. So how does it make it easier to move them, if there is not enough room to accommodate them?[/p][/quote]Though you can never say for certain how they would have responded, but 9 of the 20 (from the Echo report that I first read) that appeared on Sunday night would have been evicted to the TSP a week ago. They may or may not have stayed there (the suggestion was they would have left te Borough rather than have been told where to go), but as there is a "no return this season" clause they could not have re-appeared this week at the new sites. That would have left 11 - so still within the 16 places that were propsed. All the hand wringing about containing the travelers rather than going down the hardline and illegal road does not get away from the basic facts, a permanant site or a temporary stopping place within the Borough boundary is the best option available for Poole. Pity that naked NIMBYism stopped the most suitable site from being used as a first step. If we had been able to secure a couple more TSPs we would be well on the way to managing this annual problem - which by the way pre-dates the EU and Human Rights Act. The difference then was the greater availability of unused land - and much of Poole was owned by a family that accomodated them. In some parts of Poole we are already doing our bit to accomodate the wider traveller community, something conveniently ignored by those in other areas who plead victimisation, so time to stop whigeing about what is or isn't being done, accept we are where we are within our ancient law, and help rather than hinder a solution.[/p][/quote]Your right about the most suitable site, which was the Beach Road car park and was discounted because it happens to be in the Council Leader's ward!! You obviously weren't listening to your own council's planning committee which after a long discussion agreed the Creekmoor and Oakdale sites were not viable for residential use. It wasn't about Nimbyism - it was a carefully considered planning decision - or can't Poole's planning committee be trusted to make a good decision? Mad Karew
  • Score: 5

1:01pm Tue 20 May 14

LornaBournemouth says...

MMM444 wrote:
Fabulous site, nice view's, together with its own open air toilet, with built in Bidet, and all for nowt, Poole Council your a joke, cant see any parents wanting to see there children anywhere near that paddling pool, resign the whole lot of you, overpaid hopeless baffoons
you're!!
[quote][p][bold]MMM444[/bold] wrote: Fabulous site, nice view's, together with its own open air toilet, with built in Bidet, and all for nowt, Poole Council your a joke, cant see any parents wanting to see there children anywhere near that paddling pool, resign the whole lot of you, overpaid hopeless baffoons[/p][/quote]you're!! LornaBournemouth
  • Score: -4

1:07pm Tue 20 May 14

hamworthygirl says...

fairandsquared wrote:
Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.
Have to agree with some of this post ,i dont like travellers using our green spaces but the hysteria ive seen in hamworthy this week has made me laugh. Weve always had them, they used to park in lake road on brooksies tip for years before they built on it. Time will tell if they cause trouble or damage.
[quote][p][bold]fairandsquared[/bold] wrote: Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.[/p][/quote]Have to agree with some of this post ,i dont like travellers using our green spaces but the hysteria ive seen in hamworthy this week has made me laugh. Weve always had them, they used to park in lake road on brooksies tip for years before they built on it. Time will tell if they cause trouble or damage. hamworthygirl
  • Score: 7

1:08pm Tue 20 May 14

speedy231278 says...

fairandsquared wrote:
Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.
Have they wrecked anything? Well, if wrecked means broken, apparently a gatepost and padlock, so yes!
[quote][p][bold]fairandsquared[/bold] wrote: Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.[/p][/quote]Have they wrecked anything? Well, if wrecked means broken, apparently a gatepost and padlock, so yes! speedy231278
  • Score: 10

1:27pm Tue 20 May 14

spooki says...

speedy231278 wrote:
fairandsquared wrote:
Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.
Have they wrecked anything? Well, if wrecked means broken, apparently a gatepost and padlock, so yes!
They damage fences or access points so hey can get in. They don't always have MOTs, insurance or VED for their vehicles. The kids (and adults) run riot swearing at regular park users. They park where they're not meant to when anyone else would get a fine. They also leave piles of rubbish about because they can't be bothered to dispose of it properly or to at least leave it all in one place. Oh and from personal experience they poop in the bushes and leave used loo roll next to it.
If you are happy to loan out your garden for them then please go ahead.
I do apologise for stereotyping as I'm sure there are travelling folk who do respect their surroundings and it must be very frustrating for them.
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fairandsquared[/bold] wrote: Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.[/p][/quote]Have they wrecked anything? Well, if wrecked means broken, apparently a gatepost and padlock, so yes![/p][/quote]They damage fences or access points so hey can get in. They don't always have MOTs, insurance or VED for their vehicles. The kids (and adults) run riot swearing at regular park users. They park where they're not meant to when anyone else would get a fine. They also leave piles of rubbish about because they can't be bothered to dispose of it properly or to at least leave it all in one place. Oh and from personal experience they poop in the bushes and leave used loo roll next to it. If you are happy to loan out your garden for them then please go ahead. I do apologise for stereotyping as I'm sure there are travelling folk who do respect their surroundings and it must be very frustrating for them. spooki
  • Score: 12

1:43pm Tue 20 May 14

Numpto says...

hamworthygirl wrote:
fairandsquared wrote: Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.
Have to agree with some of this post ,i dont like travellers using our green spaces but the hysteria ive seen in hamworthy this week has made me laugh. Weve always had them, they used to park in lake road on brooksies tip for years before they built on it. Time will tell if they cause trouble or damage.
The answer is yes they have caused trouble- this morning Hamworthy Park was strewn with rubbish from the bags they had left outside their expesive caravans. The sea gulls were having quite a feast. Yesterday morning the travellers were exercising their dogsin the play area - the rules that bind the rest of us obviously don't apply to them.
[quote][p][bold]hamworthygirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fairandsquared[/bold] wrote: Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.[/p][/quote]Have to agree with some of this post ,i dont like travellers using our green spaces but the hysteria ive seen in hamworthy this week has made me laugh. Weve always had them, they used to park in lake road on brooksies tip for years before they built on it. Time will tell if they cause trouble or damage.[/p][/quote]The answer is yes they have caused trouble- this morning Hamworthy Park was strewn with rubbish from the bags they had left outside their expesive caravans. The sea gulls were having quite a feast. Yesterday morning the travellers were exercising their dogsin the play area - the rules that bind the rest of us obviously don't apply to them. Numpto
  • Score: 10

1:47pm Tue 20 May 14

pacerman says...

hamworthygirl wrote:
fairandsquared wrote:
Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.
Have to agree with some of this post ,i dont like travellers using our green spaces but the hysteria ive seen in hamworthy this week has made me laugh. Weve always had them, they used to park in lake road on brooksies tip for years before they built on it. Time will tell if they cause trouble or damage.
When travellers travel, they have to stop somewhere. All of their traditional sites have been sold off or built over, so where ARE they going to stop now there is no common land? We must all share a collective blame for refusing to face the facts.
[quote][p][bold]hamworthygirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fairandsquared[/bold] wrote: Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.[/p][/quote]Have to agree with some of this post ,i dont like travellers using our green spaces but the hysteria ive seen in hamworthy this week has made me laugh. Weve always had them, they used to park in lake road on brooksies tip for years before they built on it. Time will tell if they cause trouble or damage.[/p][/quote]When travellers travel, they have to stop somewhere. All of their traditional sites have been sold off or built over, so where ARE they going to stop now there is no common land? We must all share a collective blame for refusing to face the facts. pacerman
  • Score: -12

2:24pm Tue 20 May 14

JODDY82 says...

It happens every year throughout the borough. When are the council and government going to realise that, as tax paying residents, we don't want people ruining our facilities when they put nothing into local society. Fine, they don't want to live like we do but why do we have to pick up the tab for their life style choice.
The poor park will be weeks cleaning up, same every time we get descended on.Nobody wants a traveller site anywhere near them, can you blame them.
Wake up authorities and look at the hard truth, travellers are persona non gratis to the vast majority of people!
It happens every year throughout the borough. When are the council and government going to realise that, as tax paying residents, we don't want people ruining our facilities when they put nothing into local society. Fine, they don't want to live like we do but why do we have to pick up the tab for their life style choice. The poor park will be weeks cleaning up, same every time we get descended on.Nobody wants a traveller site anywhere near them, can you blame them. Wake up authorities and look at the hard truth, travellers are persona non gratis to the vast majority of people! JODDY82
  • Score: 7

2:33pm Tue 20 May 14

Rockley66 says...

Tony Trent wrote:
Rockley66 wrote:
The Police have powers to remove these people. Section 61 Criminal Justice Public Order Act 1994, provides police with a power to remove travellers if there are more than six vehicles, or if criminal damage has been caused. They cut the padlock, causing damage. Other UK forces use and enforce this power, Dorset Police do not. The travellers are quiet open about this and comment that this is why they stay in the county of Dorset, knowing that it is not used. I would encourage residents to contact both the Chief Constable and newly appointed Police and Crime Commissioner to ask why they are not using powers given to them by government.
The advice was that there are very few circumstances under which you can use Section 61 WITHOUT a permanant site or TSP, otherwise it would likely be being used as a first resort already. If there are FACTS that can be presented, with back up information, that can be looked at properly, I would be happy, as the appropriate Scrutiny Chair, to get them looked at and scrutinised when this Summer's experiences are reviewed in he Autumn. Sniping annonimously in a forum will not get anything changed, active engagement, armed with facts, just might!
Mr Trent, your comments are both discourteous and lack knowledge of the facts and subject. I was present when these travellers moved onto the site. I witnessed at first hand, residents calling the police and providing descriptions of the suspect that had removed the post by causing criminal damage. These details were also broadcast on the police radios, which I heard as we spoke to the officers that arrived. These will have been recorded on the police call system. I also have many years of operational experience of using Section 61 in a former life. Perhaps you will now concentrate your efforts in this regard rather than criticising people who are holding those in positions of responsibility to account regarding this matter
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rockley66[/bold] wrote: The Police have powers to remove these people. Section 61 Criminal Justice Public Order Act 1994, provides police with a power to remove travellers if there are more than six vehicles, or if criminal damage has been caused. They cut the padlock, causing damage. Other UK forces use and enforce this power, Dorset Police do not. The travellers are quiet open about this and comment that this is why they stay in the county of Dorset, knowing that it is not used. I would encourage residents to contact both the Chief Constable and newly appointed Police and Crime Commissioner to ask why they are not using powers given to them by government.[/p][/quote]The advice was that there are very few circumstances under which you can use Section 61 WITHOUT a permanant site or TSP, otherwise it would likely be being used as a first resort already. If there are FACTS that can be presented, with back up information, that can be looked at properly, I would be happy, as the appropriate Scrutiny Chair, to get them looked at and scrutinised when this Summer's experiences are reviewed in he Autumn. Sniping annonimously in a forum will not get anything changed, active engagement, armed with facts, just might![/p][/quote]Mr Trent, your comments are both discourteous and lack knowledge of the facts and subject. I was present when these travellers moved onto the site. I witnessed at first hand, residents calling the police and providing descriptions of the suspect that had removed the post by causing criminal damage. These details were also broadcast on the police radios, which I heard as we spoke to the officers that arrived. These will have been recorded on the police call system. I also have many years of operational experience of using Section 61 in a former life. Perhaps you will now concentrate your efforts in this regard rather than criticising people who are holding those in positions of responsibility to account regarding this matter Rockley66
  • Score: 7

2:33pm Tue 20 May 14

Rednax says...

Butt has the look of a traveller sympathiser about her..
Butt has the look of a traveller sympathiser about her.. Rednax
  • Score: 8

2:34pm Tue 20 May 14

nickynoodah says...

They have used all of the water out of the paddling pool
they and all of their vehicles are spotlessly clean
they love showering and having a bath
unlike some little dweller I could mention
ye olde bedsit dweller.
age 79 you know
They have used all of the water out of the paddling pool they and all of their vehicles are spotlessly clean they love showering and having a bath unlike some little dweller I could mention ye olde bedsit dweller. age 79 you know nickynoodah
  • Score: -8

2:41pm Tue 20 May 14

nickynoodah says...

Just got back from ham park
I like the new tarmac path the travellers have put leading to the new fenced boatyard, they have done a first class job you know.
they are so tranquil and relaxed.
Just got back from ham park I like the new tarmac path the travellers have put leading to the new fenced boatyard, they have done a first class job you know. they are so tranquil and relaxed. nickynoodah
  • Score: -6

2:56pm Tue 20 May 14

borderbonkers says...

Well, I'm a Hamworthy resident, use the park every day. Of course they shouldn't be there, but they are and it will be sorted. Of course they should have somewhere they CAN stay, no doubt that will be sorted one way or the other too.

In the meantime I just thought I'd report honestly what I saw between 1.30pm and 2.30pm today.

Several large caravans, a few people and small children about, a couple of traveller boys playing quietly in the play area. No noise, no smells, no bad behaviour, and above all, apart from a few neatly tied up black sacks, so far, no rubbish. Very quiet, true to say not many locals about or holiday makers, then again its not an ideal beach day, and the surfers were still out.

I did note the café was very firmly closed and shuttered. This reminded me of something I saw a lot of in London during the seventies. Signs everywhere "No Blacks, No Irish etc". Poole Council, I believe, are responsible for running the café now. In my opinion they might just as well have used a similar sign. Perhaps they ought to consider this. Just saying, just my opinion.

Just an honest report of what I saw at Hamworthy Park today.
Well, I'm a Hamworthy resident, use the park every day. Of course they shouldn't be there, but they are and it will be sorted. Of course they should have somewhere they CAN stay, no doubt that will be sorted one way or the other too. In the meantime I just thought I'd report honestly what I saw between 1.30pm and 2.30pm today. Several large caravans, a few people and small children about, a couple of traveller boys playing quietly in the play area. No noise, no smells, no bad behaviour, and above all, apart from a few neatly tied up black sacks, so far, no rubbish. Very quiet, true to say not many locals about or holiday makers, then again its not an ideal beach day, and the surfers were still out. I did note the café was very firmly closed and shuttered. This reminded me of something I saw a lot of in London during the seventies. Signs everywhere "No Blacks, No Irish etc". Poole Council, I believe, are responsible for running the café now. In my opinion they might just as well have used a similar sign. Perhaps they ought to consider this. Just saying, just my opinion. Just an honest report of what I saw at Hamworthy Park today. borderbonkers
  • Score: 5

3:13pm Tue 20 May 14

RM says...

fairandsquared wrote:
Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.
And the damage they cause accessing their illegal campsite and the rubbish they leave behind them both of which we, the council tax payers pay for - that's why they're not tolerated. Not to mention any damage they cause to plants' grass as they live their 'life choice' at residents' expense.
[quote][p][bold]fairandsquared[/bold] wrote: Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.[/p][/quote]And the damage they cause accessing their illegal campsite and the rubbish they leave behind them both of which we, the council tax payers pay for - that's why they're not tolerated. Not to mention any damage they cause to plants' grass as they live their 'life choice' at residents' expense. RM
  • Score: 5

3:20pm Tue 20 May 14

RM says...

Tony Trent wrote:
Rockley66 wrote:
The Police have powers to remove these people. Section 61 Criminal Justice Public Order Act 1994, provides police with a power to remove travellers if there are more than six vehicles, or if criminal damage has been caused. They cut the padlock, causing damage. Other UK forces use and enforce this power, Dorset Police do not. The travellers are quiet open about this and comment that this is why they stay in the county of Dorset, knowing that it is not used. I would encourage residents to contact both the Chief Constable and newly appointed Police and Crime Commissioner to ask why they are not using powers given to them by government.
The advice was that there are very few circumstances under which you can use Section 61 WITHOUT a permanant site or TSP, otherwise it would likely be being used as a first resort already. If there are FACTS that can be presented, with back up information, that can be looked at properly, I would be happy, as the appropriate Scrutiny Chair, to get them looked at and scrutinised when this Summer's experiences are reviewed in he Autumn. Sniping annonimously in a forum will not get anything changed, active engagement, armed with facts, just might!
Yes please. do that . And if the council or police are proved wrong & that they could have used section 8 and/or section 61 then there needs to be some very high level job losses.
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rockley66[/bold] wrote: The Police have powers to remove these people. Section 61 Criminal Justice Public Order Act 1994, provides police with a power to remove travellers if there are more than six vehicles, or if criminal damage has been caused. They cut the padlock, causing damage. Other UK forces use and enforce this power, Dorset Police do not. The travellers are quiet open about this and comment that this is why they stay in the county of Dorset, knowing that it is not used. I would encourage residents to contact both the Chief Constable and newly appointed Police and Crime Commissioner to ask why they are not using powers given to them by government.[/p][/quote]The advice was that there are very few circumstances under which you can use Section 61 WITHOUT a permanant site or TSP, otherwise it would likely be being used as a first resort already. If there are FACTS that can be presented, with back up information, that can be looked at properly, I would be happy, as the appropriate Scrutiny Chair, to get them looked at and scrutinised when this Summer's experiences are reviewed in he Autumn. Sniping annonimously in a forum will not get anything changed, active engagement, armed with facts, just might![/p][/quote]Yes please. do that . And if the council or police are proved wrong & that they could have used section 8 and/or section 61 then there needs to be some very high level job losses. RM
  • Score: 1

3:22pm Tue 20 May 14

shaft says...

borderbonkers wrote:
Well, I'm a Hamworthy resident, use the park every day. Of course they shouldn't be there, but they are and it will be sorted. Of course they should have somewhere they CAN stay, no doubt that will be sorted one way or the other too.

In the meantime I just thought I'd report honestly what I saw between 1.30pm and 2.30pm today.

Several large caravans, a few people and small children about, a couple of traveller boys playing quietly in the play area. No noise, no smells, no bad behaviour, and above all, apart from a few neatly tied up black sacks, so far, no rubbish. Very quiet, true to say not many locals about or holiday makers, then again its not an ideal beach day, and the surfers were still out.

I did note the café was very firmly closed and shuttered. This reminded me of something I saw a lot of in London during the seventies. Signs everywhere "No Blacks, No Irish etc". Poole Council, I believe, are responsible for running the café now. In my opinion they might just as well have used a similar sign. Perhaps they ought to consider this. Just saying, just my opinion.

Just an honest report of what I saw at Hamworthy Park today.
Did you see any DAGS.
[quote][p][bold]borderbonkers[/bold] wrote: Well, I'm a Hamworthy resident, use the park every day. Of course they shouldn't be there, but they are and it will be sorted. Of course they should have somewhere they CAN stay, no doubt that will be sorted one way or the other too. In the meantime I just thought I'd report honestly what I saw between 1.30pm and 2.30pm today. Several large caravans, a few people and small children about, a couple of traveller boys playing quietly in the play area. No noise, no smells, no bad behaviour, and above all, apart from a few neatly tied up black sacks, so far, no rubbish. Very quiet, true to say not many locals about or holiday makers, then again its not an ideal beach day, and the surfers were still out. I did note the café was very firmly closed and shuttered. This reminded me of something I saw a lot of in London during the seventies. Signs everywhere "No Blacks, No Irish etc". Poole Council, I believe, are responsible for running the café now. In my opinion they might just as well have used a similar sign. Perhaps they ought to consider this. Just saying, just my opinion. Just an honest report of what I saw at Hamworthy Park today.[/p][/quote]Did you see any DAGS. shaft
  • Score: 0

3:31pm Tue 20 May 14

MMM444 says...

LornaBournemouth wrote:
MMM444 wrote:
Fabulous site, nice view's, together with its own open air toilet, with built in Bidet, and all for nowt, Poole Council your a joke, cant see any parents wanting to see there children anywhere near that paddling pool, resign the whole lot of you, overpaid hopeless baffoons
you're!!
Yep, You're a clown
[quote][p][bold]LornaBournemouth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MMM444[/bold] wrote: Fabulous site, nice view's, together with its own open air toilet, with built in Bidet, and all for nowt, Poole Council your a joke, cant see any parents wanting to see there children anywhere near that paddling pool, resign the whole lot of you, overpaid hopeless baffoons[/p][/quote]you're!![/p][/quote]Yep, You're a clown MMM444
  • Score: 0

3:32pm Tue 20 May 14

canfordcherry says...

borderbonkers wrote:
Well, I'm a Hamworthy resident, use the park every day. Of course they shouldn't be there, but they are and it will be sorted. Of course they should have somewhere they CAN stay, no doubt that will be sorted one way or the other too.

In the meantime I just thought I'd report honestly what I saw between 1.30pm and 2.30pm today.

Several large caravans, a few people and small children about, a couple of traveller boys playing quietly in the play area. No noise, no smells, no bad behaviour, and above all, apart from a few neatly tied up black sacks, so far, no rubbish. Very quiet, true to say not many locals about or holiday makers, then again its not an ideal beach day, and the surfers were still out.

I did note the café was very firmly closed and shuttered. This reminded me of something I saw a lot of in London during the seventies. Signs everywhere "No Blacks, No Irish etc". Poole Council, I believe, are responsible for running the café now. In my opinion they might just as well have used a similar sign. Perhaps they ought to consider this. Just saying, just my opinion.

Just an honest report of what I saw at Hamworthy Park today.
There are good travellers out there. Hopefully this group will prove themselves to be the real deal and not the ones we have got used to over the years. Doubtless to say the kind we are expecting will show up shortly but let's not just stereotype them all without facts to back it up. While they are behaving let them get on with it.
[quote][p][bold]borderbonkers[/bold] wrote: Well, I'm a Hamworthy resident, use the park every day. Of course they shouldn't be there, but they are and it will be sorted. Of course they should have somewhere they CAN stay, no doubt that will be sorted one way or the other too. In the meantime I just thought I'd report honestly what I saw between 1.30pm and 2.30pm today. Several large caravans, a few people and small children about, a couple of traveller boys playing quietly in the play area. No noise, no smells, no bad behaviour, and above all, apart from a few neatly tied up black sacks, so far, no rubbish. Very quiet, true to say not many locals about or holiday makers, then again its not an ideal beach day, and the surfers were still out. I did note the café was very firmly closed and shuttered. This reminded me of something I saw a lot of in London during the seventies. Signs everywhere "No Blacks, No Irish etc". Poole Council, I believe, are responsible for running the café now. In my opinion they might just as well have used a similar sign. Perhaps they ought to consider this. Just saying, just my opinion. Just an honest report of what I saw at Hamworthy Park today.[/p][/quote]There are good travellers out there. Hopefully this group will prove themselves to be the real deal and not the ones we have got used to over the years. Doubtless to say the kind we are expecting will show up shortly but let's not just stereotype them all without facts to back it up. While they are behaving let them get on with it. canfordcherry
  • Score: -3

4:02pm Tue 20 May 14

Baysider says...

borderbonkers wrote:
Well, I'm a Hamworthy resident, use the park every day. Of course they shouldn't be there, but they are and it will be sorted. Of course they should have somewhere they CAN stay, no doubt that will be sorted one way or the other too.

In the meantime I just thought I'd report honestly what I saw between 1.30pm and 2.30pm today.

Several large caravans, a few people and small children about, a couple of traveller boys playing quietly in the play area. No noise, no smells, no bad behaviour, and above all, apart from a few neatly tied up black sacks, so far, no rubbish. Very quiet, true to say not many locals about or holiday makers, then again its not an ideal beach day, and the surfers were still out.

I did note the café was very firmly closed and shuttered. This reminded me of something I saw a lot of in London during the seventies. Signs everywhere "No Blacks, No Irish etc". Poole Council, I believe, are responsible for running the café now. In my opinion they might just as well have used a similar sign. Perhaps they ought to consider this. Just saying, just my opinion.

Just an honest report of what I saw at Hamworthy Park today.
Thank you for your first hand perspective. It's just a shame that the majority of commentators prefer to go along with the hysteria whipped up by the Echo rather than discuss the issue properly, with the help of facts and boring stuff like that...
[quote][p][bold]borderbonkers[/bold] wrote: Well, I'm a Hamworthy resident, use the park every day. Of course they shouldn't be there, but they are and it will be sorted. Of course they should have somewhere they CAN stay, no doubt that will be sorted one way or the other too. In the meantime I just thought I'd report honestly what I saw between 1.30pm and 2.30pm today. Several large caravans, a few people and small children about, a couple of traveller boys playing quietly in the play area. No noise, no smells, no bad behaviour, and above all, apart from a few neatly tied up black sacks, so far, no rubbish. Very quiet, true to say not many locals about or holiday makers, then again its not an ideal beach day, and the surfers were still out. I did note the café was very firmly closed and shuttered. This reminded me of something I saw a lot of in London during the seventies. Signs everywhere "No Blacks, No Irish etc". Poole Council, I believe, are responsible for running the café now. In my opinion they might just as well have used a similar sign. Perhaps they ought to consider this. Just saying, just my opinion. Just an honest report of what I saw at Hamworthy Park today.[/p][/quote]Thank you for your first hand perspective. It's just a shame that the majority of commentators prefer to go along with the hysteria whipped up by the Echo rather than discuss the issue properly, with the help of facts and boring stuff like that... Baysider
  • Score: 5

4:09pm Tue 20 May 14

Brimonty says...

borderbonkers wrote:
Well, I'm a Hamworthy resident, use the park every day. Of course they shouldn't be there, but they are and it will be sorted. Of course they should have somewhere they CAN stay, no doubt that will be sorted one way or the other too.

In the meantime I just thought I'd report honestly what I saw between 1.30pm and 2.30pm today.

Several large caravans, a few people and small children about, a couple of traveller boys playing quietly in the play area. No noise, no smells, no bad behaviour, and above all, apart from a few neatly tied up black sacks, so far, no rubbish. Very quiet, true to say not many locals about or holiday makers, then again its not an ideal beach day, and the surfers were still out.

I did note the café was very firmly closed and shuttered. This reminded me of something I saw a lot of in London during the seventies. Signs everywhere "No Blacks, No Irish etc". Poole Council, I believe, are responsible for running the café now. In my opinion they might just as well have used a similar sign. Perhaps they ought to consider this. Just saying, just my opinion.

Just an honest report of what I saw at Hamworthy Park today.
Visited the Park about the same time yesterday (Monday), same situation, no problems, few adults & chidren enjoying the fine day. The only rubbish I saw was around the rubbish bins which had not been emptied after the busy weekend.
[quote][p][bold]borderbonkers[/bold] wrote: Well, I'm a Hamworthy resident, use the park every day. Of course they shouldn't be there, but they are and it will be sorted. Of course they should have somewhere they CAN stay, no doubt that will be sorted one way or the other too. In the meantime I just thought I'd report honestly what I saw between 1.30pm and 2.30pm today. Several large caravans, a few people and small children about, a couple of traveller boys playing quietly in the play area. No noise, no smells, no bad behaviour, and above all, apart from a few neatly tied up black sacks, so far, no rubbish. Very quiet, true to say not many locals about or holiday makers, then again its not an ideal beach day, and the surfers were still out. I did note the café was very firmly closed and shuttered. This reminded me of something I saw a lot of in London during the seventies. Signs everywhere "No Blacks, No Irish etc". Poole Council, I believe, are responsible for running the café now. In my opinion they might just as well have used a similar sign. Perhaps they ought to consider this. Just saying, just my opinion. Just an honest report of what I saw at Hamworthy Park today.[/p][/quote]Visited the Park about the same time yesterday (Monday), same situation, no problems, few adults & chidren enjoying the fine day. The only rubbish I saw was around the rubbish bins which had not been emptied after the busy weekend. Brimonty
  • Score: 4

4:09pm Tue 20 May 14

Brimonty says...

borderbonkers wrote:
Well, I'm a Hamworthy resident, use the park every day. Of course they shouldn't be there, but they are and it will be sorted. Of course they should have somewhere they CAN stay, no doubt that will be sorted one way or the other too.

In the meantime I just thought I'd report honestly what I saw between 1.30pm and 2.30pm today.

Several large caravans, a few people and small children about, a couple of traveller boys playing quietly in the play area. No noise, no smells, no bad behaviour, and above all, apart from a few neatly tied up black sacks, so far, no rubbish. Very quiet, true to say not many locals about or holiday makers, then again its not an ideal beach day, and the surfers were still out.

I did note the café was very firmly closed and shuttered. This reminded me of something I saw a lot of in London during the seventies. Signs everywhere "No Blacks, No Irish etc". Poole Council, I believe, are responsible for running the café now. In my opinion they might just as well have used a similar sign. Perhaps they ought to consider this. Just saying, just my opinion.

Just an honest report of what I saw at Hamworthy Park today.
Visited the Park about the same time yesterday (Monday), same situation, no problems, few adults & chidren enjoying the fine day. The only rubbish I saw was around the rubbish bins which had not been emptied after the busy weekend.
[quote][p][bold]borderbonkers[/bold] wrote: Well, I'm a Hamworthy resident, use the park every day. Of course they shouldn't be there, but they are and it will be sorted. Of course they should have somewhere they CAN stay, no doubt that will be sorted one way or the other too. In the meantime I just thought I'd report honestly what I saw between 1.30pm and 2.30pm today. Several large caravans, a few people and small children about, a couple of traveller boys playing quietly in the play area. No noise, no smells, no bad behaviour, and above all, apart from a few neatly tied up black sacks, so far, no rubbish. Very quiet, true to say not many locals about or holiday makers, then again its not an ideal beach day, and the surfers were still out. I did note the café was very firmly closed and shuttered. This reminded me of something I saw a lot of in London during the seventies. Signs everywhere "No Blacks, No Irish etc". Poole Council, I believe, are responsible for running the café now. In my opinion they might just as well have used a similar sign. Perhaps they ought to consider this. Just saying, just my opinion. Just an honest report of what I saw at Hamworthy Park today.[/p][/quote]Visited the Park about the same time yesterday (Monday), same situation, no problems, few adults & chidren enjoying the fine day. The only rubbish I saw was around the rubbish bins which had not been emptied after the busy weekend. Brimonty
  • Score: 1

4:16pm Tue 20 May 14

Minty Fresh says...

Once again this pathetic publication sits on the fence, refusing to back it's local people or use it's considerable influence to put pressure on politicians for a law change that would see these freeloading parasites brought to book. The Echo needs to start a highly visible campaign to bring this about. Why is this not happening Mr Editor? Stop running scared of these nomads and the racist nonsense they hide behind and grow a pair please.
Once again this pathetic publication sits on the fence, refusing to back it's local people or use it's considerable influence to put pressure on politicians for a law change that would see these freeloading parasites brought to book. The Echo needs to start a highly visible campaign to bring this about. Why is this not happening Mr Editor? Stop running scared of these nomads and the racist nonsense they hide behind and grow a pair please. Minty Fresh
  • Score: 9

4:50pm Tue 20 May 14

loftusrod says...

pacerman wrote:
hamworthygirl wrote:
fairandsquared wrote:
Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.
Have to agree with some of this post ,i dont like travellers using our green spaces but the hysteria ive seen in hamworthy this week has made me laugh. Weve always had them, they used to park in lake road on brooksies tip for years before they built on it. Time will tell if they cause trouble or damage.
When travellers travel, they have to stop somewhere. All of their traditional sites have been sold off or built over, so where ARE they going to stop now there is no common land? We must all share a collective blame for refusing to face the facts.
That's part of the issue though; they don't spend enough time travelling. Once every ten days or so from one park to the next then rest up again.
So what's that, about 1% of the time travelling?
And there's plenty of places they can stay, they're called campsites.
[quote][p][bold]pacerman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hamworthygirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fairandsquared[/bold] wrote: Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.[/p][/quote]Have to agree with some of this post ,i dont like travellers using our green spaces but the hysteria ive seen in hamworthy this week has made me laugh. Weve always had them, they used to park in lake road on brooksies tip for years before they built on it. Time will tell if they cause trouble or damage.[/p][/quote]When travellers travel, they have to stop somewhere. All of their traditional sites have been sold off or built over, so where ARE they going to stop now there is no common land? We must all share a collective blame for refusing to face the facts.[/p][/quote]That's part of the issue though; they don't spend enough time travelling. Once every ten days or so from one park to the next then rest up again. So what's that, about 1% of the time travelling? And there's plenty of places they can stay, they're called campsites. loftusrod
  • Score: 6

5:20pm Tue 20 May 14

Tony Trent says...

RM wrote:
Tony Trent wrote:
Rockley66 wrote:
The Police have powers to remove these people. Section 61 Criminal Justice Public Order Act 1994, provides police with a power to remove travellers if there are more than six vehicles, or if criminal damage has been caused. They cut the padlock, causing damage. Other UK forces use and enforce this power, Dorset Police do not. The travellers are quiet open about this and comment that this is why they stay in the county of Dorset, knowing that it is not used. I would encourage residents to contact both the Chief Constable and newly appointed Police and Crime Commissioner to ask why they are not using powers given to them by government.
The advice was that there are very few circumstances under which you can use Section 61 WITHOUT a permanant site or TSP, otherwise it would likely be being used as a first resort already. If there are FACTS that can be presented, with back up information, that can be looked at properly, I would be happy, as the appropriate Scrutiny Chair, to get them looked at and scrutinised when this Summer's experiences are reviewed in he Autumn. Sniping annonimously in a forum will not get anything changed, active engagement, armed with facts, just might!
Yes please. do that . And if the council or police are proved wrong & that they could have used section 8 and/or section 61 then there needs to be some very high level job losses.
Hopefully some anonymous person who believes they have the facts that the Police and legal experts don't have, or don't accept, then please become a real person, get in touch, and be part of the process of review in the Autumn. Sometimes these ideas are half the story and there is another factor not shared. S61 has been used in Poole on one site by the Police, but there were exceptioal circumstances that made it possible. We need more than heresay to back up a reccomendation, otherwise it's the same boring answer about needing at the very least a TSP in Poole.
[quote][p][bold]RM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rockley66[/bold] wrote: The Police have powers to remove these people. Section 61 Criminal Justice Public Order Act 1994, provides police with a power to remove travellers if there are more than six vehicles, or if criminal damage has been caused. They cut the padlock, causing damage. Other UK forces use and enforce this power, Dorset Police do not. The travellers are quiet open about this and comment that this is why they stay in the county of Dorset, knowing that it is not used. I would encourage residents to contact both the Chief Constable and newly appointed Police and Crime Commissioner to ask why they are not using powers given to them by government.[/p][/quote]The advice was that there are very few circumstances under which you can use Section 61 WITHOUT a permanant site or TSP, otherwise it would likely be being used as a first resort already. If there are FACTS that can be presented, with back up information, that can be looked at properly, I would be happy, as the appropriate Scrutiny Chair, to get them looked at and scrutinised when this Summer's experiences are reviewed in he Autumn. Sniping annonimously in a forum will not get anything changed, active engagement, armed with facts, just might![/p][/quote]Yes please. do that . And if the council or police are proved wrong & that they could have used section 8 and/or section 61 then there needs to be some very high level job losses.[/p][/quote]Hopefully some anonymous person who believes they have the facts that the Police and legal experts don't have, or don't accept, then please become a real person, get in touch, and be part of the process of review in the Autumn. Sometimes these ideas are half the story and there is another factor not shared. S61 has been used in Poole on one site by the Police, but there were exceptioal circumstances that made it possible. We need more than heresay to back up a reccomendation, otherwise it's the same boring answer about needing at the very least a TSP in Poole. Tony Trent
  • Score: -5

5:32pm Tue 20 May 14

boyerboy says...

Can we give our Traveller friends a list of the addresses of all the local Councillors who have room in their gardens/drives etc for a few Transits and caravans ?

I am sure they will welcome them.
Can we give our Traveller friends a list of the addresses of all the local Councillors who have room in their gardens/drives etc for a few Transits and caravans ? I am sure they will welcome them. boyerboy
  • Score: 6

5:33pm Tue 20 May 14

Tony Trent says...

Rockley66 wrote:
Tony Trent wrote:
Rockley66 wrote:
The Police have powers to remove these people. Section 61 Criminal Justice Public Order Act 1994, provides police with a power to remove travellers if there are more than six vehicles, or if criminal damage has been caused. They cut the padlock, causing damage. Other UK forces use and enforce this power, Dorset Police do not. The travellers are quiet open about this and comment that this is why they stay in the county of Dorset, knowing that it is not used. I would encourage residents to contact both the Chief Constable and newly appointed Police and Crime Commissioner to ask why they are not using powers given to them by government.
The advice was that there are very few circumstances under which you can use Section 61 WITHOUT a permanant site or TSP, otherwise it would likely be being used as a first resort already. If there are FACTS that can be presented, with back up information, that can be looked at properly, I would be happy, as the appropriate Scrutiny Chair, to get them looked at and scrutinised when this Summer's experiences are reviewed in he Autumn. Sniping annonimously in a forum will not get anything changed, active engagement, armed with facts, just might!
Mr Trent, your comments are both discourteous and lack knowledge of the facts and subject. I was present when these travellers moved onto the site. I witnessed at first hand, residents calling the police and providing descriptions of the suspect that had removed the post by causing criminal damage. These details were also broadcast on the police radios, which I heard as we spoke to the officers that arrived. These will have been recorded on the police call system. I also have many years of operational experience of using Section 61 in a former life. Perhaps you will now concentrate your efforts in this regard rather than criticising people who are holding those in positions of responsibility to account regarding this matter
If your facts disagree with the Police and legal advice - share them in an open way where they can be researched or challenged if need be, or questions asked. If you know better than the experts you have the opportunity to present your information later in the year. Four minutes (two is better) or a side of A4 is a good guideline. There are people ready to listen. Sniping anonimously on an online forum is not holding peole to account. Most people who have influence have stopped reading these forums long ago!
[quote][p][bold]Rockley66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rockley66[/bold] wrote: The Police have powers to remove these people. Section 61 Criminal Justice Public Order Act 1994, provides police with a power to remove travellers if there are more than six vehicles, or if criminal damage has been caused. They cut the padlock, causing damage. Other UK forces use and enforce this power, Dorset Police do not. The travellers are quiet open about this and comment that this is why they stay in the county of Dorset, knowing that it is not used. I would encourage residents to contact both the Chief Constable and newly appointed Police and Crime Commissioner to ask why they are not using powers given to them by government.[/p][/quote]The advice was that there are very few circumstances under which you can use Section 61 WITHOUT a permanant site or TSP, otherwise it would likely be being used as a first resort already. If there are FACTS that can be presented, with back up information, that can be looked at properly, I would be happy, as the appropriate Scrutiny Chair, to get them looked at and scrutinised when this Summer's experiences are reviewed in he Autumn. Sniping annonimously in a forum will not get anything changed, active engagement, armed with facts, just might![/p][/quote]Mr Trent, your comments are both discourteous and lack knowledge of the facts and subject. I was present when these travellers moved onto the site. I witnessed at first hand, residents calling the police and providing descriptions of the suspect that had removed the post by causing criminal damage. These details were also broadcast on the police radios, which I heard as we spoke to the officers that arrived. These will have been recorded on the police call system. I also have many years of operational experience of using Section 61 in a former life. Perhaps you will now concentrate your efforts in this regard rather than criticising people who are holding those in positions of responsibility to account regarding this matter[/p][/quote]If your facts disagree with the Police and legal advice - share them in an open way where they can be researched or challenged if need be, or questions asked. If you know better than the experts you have the opportunity to present your information later in the year. Four minutes (two is better) or a side of A4 is a good guideline. There are people ready to listen. Sniping anonimously on an online forum is not holding peole to account. Most people who have influence have stopped reading these forums long ago! Tony Trent
  • Score: -3

6:29pm Tue 20 May 14

ashleycross says...

I've heard about the site on Canford Heath. What exactly is the reason for not bringing it back into use? Who owns it? Who's got an option to develop it? Is the cost of policing it against being vandalised prohibitive?Where is it? what is its address and postcode so we can all google it? What's the story?
I've heard about the site on Canford Heath. What exactly is the reason for not bringing it back into use? Who owns it? Who's got an option to develop it? Is the cost of policing it against being vandalised prohibitive?Where is it? what is its address and postcode so we can all google it? What's the story? ashleycross
  • Score: -3

6:36pm Tue 20 May 14

Carolyn43 says...

fairandsquared wrote:
Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.
Firstly I am NOT Judy Butt. I just believe that before you criticise what happened over the proposed TSPs you should read all the documents and comments (all 209 of them for Creekmoor) on the actual planning applications and reasons for the refusal instead of a knee-jerk reaction.

And Tony Trent, as a councillor you should know that nimbyism isn't a reason for the council turning down a planning application. You are just deliberately adding to the bad feelings.

I didn't see your comment in support of the proposals - in fact I only saw a couple of comments of support; I doubt that any were from people who are now posting their criticisms on here after the fact. If you feel that strongly you should have added your support to the planning application with valid planning reasons on why the sites were suitable. The majority of comments were objections on planning grounds on the unsuitability of the two sites - any of the minority which just said they didn't want the site near them were noted but not included in the applications which went before the Planning Committee.

It also appears that Tony Trent doesn't think the councillors on the Planning Committee did their job properly. I'm sure they're very happy to have you insult them.

As for suggesting people research, perhaps you should follow your own advice. Where is your evidence (not just your opinion) that if the maximum were directed to the TSPs, they would leave the area so the next batch could be directed there? Are you aware that Joe Jones of the Gypsy Council said that they would not use the sites, but would pitch up on PRIVATE land? Well, as far as you are concerned that would have solved the council's problem - but not that of residents.
[quote][p][bold]fairandsquared[/bold] wrote: Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.[/p][/quote]Firstly I am NOT Judy Butt. I just believe that before you criticise what happened over the proposed TSPs you should read all the documents and comments (all 209 of them for Creekmoor) on the actual planning applications and reasons for the refusal instead of a knee-jerk reaction. And Tony Trent, as a councillor you should know that nimbyism isn't a reason for the council turning down a planning application. You are just deliberately adding to the bad feelings. I didn't see your comment in support of the proposals - in fact I only saw a couple of comments of support; I doubt that any were from people who are now posting their criticisms on here after the fact. If you feel that strongly you should have added your support to the planning application with valid planning reasons on why the sites were suitable. The majority of comments were objections on planning grounds on the unsuitability of the two sites - any of the minority which just said they didn't want the site near them were noted but not included in the applications which went before the Planning Committee. It also appears that Tony Trent doesn't think the councillors on the Planning Committee did their job properly. I'm sure they're very happy to have you insult them. As for suggesting people research, perhaps you should follow your own advice. Where is your evidence (not just your opinion) that if the maximum were directed to the TSPs, they would leave the area so the next batch could be directed there? Are you aware that Joe Jones of the Gypsy Council said that they would not use the sites, but would pitch up on PRIVATE land? Well, as far as you are concerned that would have solved the council's problem - but not that of residents. Carolyn43
  • Score: 4

6:38pm Tue 20 May 14

borderbonkers says...

fairandsquared wrote:
Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.
Correct, as a small girl my gran used to take me out on Canford Heath before ever a house appeared on it. They used to be there, just where the modern Old Wareham Road is today (it was a dirt track). Never had a problem, but mum and gran always made sure they bought the dolly pegs or heather from the ladies at the front door!

I also recall, as an infant at Stanley Green, every year we had at least four gypsy children for a few weeks, then they'd just disappear again.

Still not saying I agree with all this illegal camping, but it is true they have a long history with Dorset.
[quote][p][bold]fairandsquared[/bold] wrote: Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.[/p][/quote]Correct, as a small girl my gran used to take me out on Canford Heath before ever a house appeared on it. They used to be there, just where the modern Old Wareham Road is today (it was a dirt track). Never had a problem, but mum and gran always made sure they bought the dolly pegs or heather from the ladies at the front door! I also recall, as an infant at Stanley Green, every year we had at least four gypsy children for a few weeks, then they'd just disappear again. Still not saying I agree with all this illegal camping, but it is true they have a long history with Dorset. borderbonkers
  • Score: 2

6:49pm Tue 20 May 14

borderbonkers says...

shaft wrote:
borderbonkers wrote:
Well, I'm a Hamworthy resident, use the park every day. Of course they shouldn't be there, but they are and it will be sorted. Of course they should have somewhere they CAN stay, no doubt that will be sorted one way or the other too.

In the meantime I just thought I'd report honestly what I saw between 1.30pm and 2.30pm today.

Several large caravans, a few people and small children about, a couple of traveller boys playing quietly in the play area. No noise, no smells, no bad behaviour, and above all, apart from a few neatly tied up black sacks, so far, no rubbish. Very quiet, true to say not many locals about or holiday makers, then again its not an ideal beach day, and the surfers were still out.

I did note the café was very firmly closed and shuttered. This reminded me of something I saw a lot of in London during the seventies. Signs everywhere "No Blacks, No Irish etc". Poole Council, I believe, are responsible for running the café now. In my opinion they might just as well have used a similar sign. Perhaps they ought to consider this. Just saying, just my opinion.

Just an honest report of what I saw at Hamworthy Park today.
Did you see any DAGS.
Yep I did LOL - the tiniest little jack russel
l with rather a lot to say!
[quote][p][bold]shaft[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]borderbonkers[/bold] wrote: Well, I'm a Hamworthy resident, use the park every day. Of course they shouldn't be there, but they are and it will be sorted. Of course they should have somewhere they CAN stay, no doubt that will be sorted one way or the other too. In the meantime I just thought I'd report honestly what I saw between 1.30pm and 2.30pm today. Several large caravans, a few people and small children about, a couple of traveller boys playing quietly in the play area. No noise, no smells, no bad behaviour, and above all, apart from a few neatly tied up black sacks, so far, no rubbish. Very quiet, true to say not many locals about or holiday makers, then again its not an ideal beach day, and the surfers were still out. I did note the café was very firmly closed and shuttered. This reminded me of something I saw a lot of in London during the seventies. Signs everywhere "No Blacks, No Irish etc". Poole Council, I believe, are responsible for running the café now. In my opinion they might just as well have used a similar sign. Perhaps they ought to consider this. Just saying, just my opinion. Just an honest report of what I saw at Hamworthy Park today.[/p][/quote]Did you see any DAGS.[/p][/quote]Yep I did LOL - the tiniest little jack russel l with rather a lot to say! borderbonkers
  • Score: 0

7:41pm Tue 20 May 14

JustForPoole says...

loftusrod wrote:
pacerman wrote:
hamworthygirl wrote:
fairandsquared wrote:
Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.
Have to agree with some of this post ,i dont like travellers using our green spaces but the hysteria ive seen in hamworthy this week has made me laugh. Weve always had them, they used to park in lake road on brooksies tip for years before they built on it. Time will tell if they cause trouble or damage.
When travellers travel, they have to stop somewhere. All of their traditional sites have been sold off or built over, so where ARE they going to stop now there is no common land? We must all share a collective blame for refusing to face the facts.
That's part of the issue though; they don't spend enough time travelling. Once every ten days or so from one park to the next then rest up again.
So what's that, about 1% of the time travelling?
And there's plenty of places they can stay, they're called campsites.
On a campsite ..... I think not !!!!! The campsite owner would have no other paying customers .... who would want to pay to camp with the "travellers". They should be escorted to the border of another county and got rid of!!!
[quote][p][bold]loftusrod[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pacerman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hamworthygirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fairandsquared[/bold] wrote: Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.[/p][/quote]Have to agree with some of this post ,i dont like travellers using our green spaces but the hysteria ive seen in hamworthy this week has made me laugh. Weve always had them, they used to park in lake road on brooksies tip for years before they built on it. Time will tell if they cause trouble or damage.[/p][/quote]When travellers travel, they have to stop somewhere. All of their traditional sites have been sold off or built over, so where ARE they going to stop now there is no common land? We must all share a collective blame for refusing to face the facts.[/p][/quote]That's part of the issue though; they don't spend enough time travelling. Once every ten days or so from one park to the next then rest up again. So what's that, about 1% of the time travelling? And there's plenty of places they can stay, they're called campsites.[/p][/quote]On a campsite ..... I think not !!!!! The campsite owner would have no other paying customers .... who would want to pay to camp with the "travellers". They should be escorted to the border of another county and got rid of!!! JustForPoole
  • Score: 5

8:10pm Tue 20 May 14

Rockley66 says...

Tony Trent wrote:
Rockley66 wrote:
Tony Trent wrote:
Rockley66 wrote:
The Police have powers to remove these people. Section 61 Criminal Justice Public Order Act 1994, provides police with a power to remove travellers if there are more than six vehicles, or if criminal damage has been caused. They cut the padlock, causing damage. Other UK forces use and enforce this power, Dorset Police do not. The travellers are quiet open about this and comment that this is why they stay in the county of Dorset, knowing that it is not used. I would encourage residents to contact both the Chief Constable and newly appointed Police and Crime Commissioner to ask why they are not using powers given to them by government.
The advice was that there are very few circumstances under which you can use Section 61 WITHOUT a permanant site or TSP, otherwise it would likely be being used as a first resort already. If there are FACTS that can be presented, with back up information, that can be looked at properly, I would be happy, as the appropriate Scrutiny Chair, to get them looked at and scrutinised when this Summer's experiences are reviewed in he Autumn. Sniping annonimously in a forum will not get anything changed, active engagement, armed with facts, just might!
Mr Trent, your comments are both discourteous and lack knowledge of the facts and subject. I was present when these travellers moved onto the site. I witnessed at first hand, residents calling the police and providing descriptions of the suspect that had removed the post by causing criminal damage. These details were also broadcast on the police radios, which I heard as we spoke to the officers that arrived. These will have been recorded on the police call system. I also have many years of operational experience of using Section 61 in a former life. Perhaps you will now concentrate your efforts in this regard rather than criticising people who are holding those in positions of responsibility to account regarding this matter
If your facts disagree with the Police and legal advice - share them in an open way where they can be researched or challenged if need be, or questions asked. If you know better than the experts you have the opportunity to present your information later in the year. Four minutes (two is better) or a side of A4 is a good guideline. There are people ready to listen. Sniping anonimously on an online forum is not holding peole to account. Most people who have influence have stopped reading these forums long ago!
Mr Trent. The comments placed on here were for the benefit of my neighbours and fellow residents, who like me have this problem on our doorstep. Your posts and comments speak volumes to the local community and I for one am not interested in your offer to look at the problem later in the Autumn when you, in your very important role as Chair of the Scrutiny Committee will review these events. This matter is live to those of us that live here at the moment. The law has been broken. For clarity, when someone hears something first hand verbatim, that is a statement of fact. When they hear it via a third party or secondhand that is hearsay. I think enough information has been provided to the police in relation to this matter and the posts on this forum for any genuine interested party to research , verify and act upon if necessary. That quite clearly does not apply to you. I do not intend getting involved further in your pointless exchanges with your personal opinions. The info I have placed here is both factual and accurate. If you choose to dismiss that information then then is a matter for you.
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rockley66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rockley66[/bold] wrote: The Police have powers to remove these people. Section 61 Criminal Justice Public Order Act 1994, provides police with a power to remove travellers if there are more than six vehicles, or if criminal damage has been caused. They cut the padlock, causing damage. Other UK forces use and enforce this power, Dorset Police do not. The travellers are quiet open about this and comment that this is why they stay in the county of Dorset, knowing that it is not used. I would encourage residents to contact both the Chief Constable and newly appointed Police and Crime Commissioner to ask why they are not using powers given to them by government.[/p][/quote]The advice was that there are very few circumstances under which you can use Section 61 WITHOUT a permanant site or TSP, otherwise it would likely be being used as a first resort already. If there are FACTS that can be presented, with back up information, that can be looked at properly, I would be happy, as the appropriate Scrutiny Chair, to get them looked at and scrutinised when this Summer's experiences are reviewed in he Autumn. Sniping annonimously in a forum will not get anything changed, active engagement, armed with facts, just might![/p][/quote]Mr Trent, your comments are both discourteous and lack knowledge of the facts and subject. I was present when these travellers moved onto the site. I witnessed at first hand, residents calling the police and providing descriptions of the suspect that had removed the post by causing criminal damage. These details were also broadcast on the police radios, which I heard as we spoke to the officers that arrived. These will have been recorded on the police call system. I also have many years of operational experience of using Section 61 in a former life. Perhaps you will now concentrate your efforts in this regard rather than criticising people who are holding those in positions of responsibility to account regarding this matter[/p][/quote]If your facts disagree with the Police and legal advice - share them in an open way where they can be researched or challenged if need be, or questions asked. If you know better than the experts you have the opportunity to present your information later in the year. Four minutes (two is better) or a side of A4 is a good guideline. There are people ready to listen. Sniping anonimously on an online forum is not holding peole to account. Most people who have influence have stopped reading these forums long ago![/p][/quote]Mr Trent. The comments placed on here were for the benefit of my neighbours and fellow residents, who like me have this problem on our doorstep. Your posts and comments speak volumes to the local community and I for one am not interested in your offer to look at the problem later in the Autumn when you, in your very important role as Chair of the Scrutiny Committee will review these events. This matter is live to those of us that live here at the moment. The law has been broken. For clarity, when someone hears something first hand verbatim, that is a statement of fact. When they hear it via a third party or secondhand that is hearsay. I think enough information has been provided to the police in relation to this matter and the posts on this forum for any genuine interested party to research , verify and act upon if necessary. That quite clearly does not apply to you. I do not intend getting involved further in your pointless exchanges with your personal opinions. The info I have placed here is both factual and accurate. If you choose to dismiss that information then then is a matter for you. Rockley66
  • Score: 5

8:17pm Tue 20 May 14

canfordcherry says...

borderbonkers wrote:
fairandsquared wrote:
Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.
Correct, as a small girl my gran used to take me out on Canford Heath before ever a house appeared on it. They used to be there, just where the modern Old Wareham Road is today (it was a dirt track). Never had a problem, but mum and gran always made sure they bought the dolly pegs or heather from the ladies at the front door!

I also recall, as an infant at Stanley Green, every year we had at least four gypsy children for a few weeks, then they'd just disappear again.

Still not saying I agree with all this illegal camping, but it is true they have a long history with Dorset.
I too remember them being there, down quite a steep hill. There was one house in the wooded area, as youngsters it was always known to us as the witch's house. I think as part of redevelopment the offer of housing in the Alderney area was offered and many of those who accepted could not get used to this different way of living, housing a horse in the kitchen and replacing the back door with a stable style one so it could look out was one happening I remember. Never a problem with them in that time and as kids we had a curious friendship with each other. They were true Romanies living the correct way, yes some of these may be relatives but many have gone down a totally different way of living while still calling themselves travellers.
[quote][p][bold]borderbonkers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fairandsquared[/bold] wrote: Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.[/p][/quote]Correct, as a small girl my gran used to take me out on Canford Heath before ever a house appeared on it. They used to be there, just where the modern Old Wareham Road is today (it was a dirt track). Never had a problem, but mum and gran always made sure they bought the dolly pegs or heather from the ladies at the front door! I also recall, as an infant at Stanley Green, every year we had at least four gypsy children for a few weeks, then they'd just disappear again. Still not saying I agree with all this illegal camping, but it is true they have a long history with Dorset.[/p][/quote]I too remember them being there, down quite a steep hill. There was one house in the wooded area, as youngsters it was always known to us as the witch's house. I think as part of redevelopment the offer of housing in the Alderney area was offered and many of those who accepted could not get used to this different way of living, housing a horse in the kitchen and replacing the back door with a stable style one so it could look out was one happening I remember. Never a problem with them in that time and as kids we had a curious friendship with each other. They were true Romanies living the correct way, yes some of these may be relatives but many have gone down a totally different way of living while still calling themselves travellers. canfordcherry
  • Score: 2

8:50pm Tue 20 May 14

hamuser says...

Lets be clear.........most of the so called " Travellers" are people with houses in Ireland who choose to spend a few months touring various locations in England with their expensive caravans and modern vehicles. Unlike anyone else who may choose to do that, their expectation is to be able to pitch wherever they like without paying. I see no reason to have to find temporary or permanent sites for these people. If they have a house......anywhere.
....then they have somewhere else they can go. The reason a different set of rules applies to these people is purely because of the level of anti social behaviour and even violence they are prepared to display when faced with any form of authority. Seizing assets to pay for the damage etc they cause is the best way to discourage them..........and taking action to immediately remove them from any private or public land.
Lets be clear.........most of the so called " Travellers" are people with houses in Ireland who choose to spend a few months touring various locations in England with their expensive caravans and modern vehicles. Unlike anyone else who may choose to do that, their expectation is to be able to pitch wherever they like without paying. I see no reason to have to find temporary or permanent sites for these people. If they have a house......anywhere. ....then they have somewhere else they can go. The reason a different set of rules applies to these people is purely because of the level of anti social behaviour and even violence they are prepared to display when faced with any form of authority. Seizing assets to pay for the damage etc they cause is the best way to discourage them..........and taking action to immediately remove them from any private or public land. hamuser
  • Score: 5

9:01pm Tue 20 May 14

loftusrod says...

JustForPoole wrote:
loftusrod wrote:
pacerman wrote:
hamworthygirl wrote:
fairandsquared wrote:
Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.
Have to agree with some of this post ,i dont like travellers using our green spaces but the hysteria ive seen in hamworthy this week has made me laugh. Weve always had them, they used to park in lake road on brooksies tip for years before they built on it. Time will tell if they cause trouble or damage.
When travellers travel, they have to stop somewhere. All of their traditional sites have been sold off or built over, so where ARE they going to stop now there is no common land? We must all share a collective blame for refusing to face the facts.
That's part of the issue though; they don't spend enough time travelling. Once every ten days or so from one park to the next then rest up again.
So what's that, about 1% of the time travelling?
And there's plenty of places they can stay, they're called campsites.
On a campsite ..... I think not !!!!! The campsite owner would have no other paying customers .... who would want to pay to camp with the "travellers". They should be escorted to the border of another county and got rid of!!!
I'm just making the point that there are places they could go to if they really wanted to be accepted.
[quote][p][bold]JustForPoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loftusrod[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pacerman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hamworthygirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fairandsquared[/bold] wrote: Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.[/p][/quote]Have to agree with some of this post ,i dont like travellers using our green spaces but the hysteria ive seen in hamworthy this week has made me laugh. Weve always had them, they used to park in lake road on brooksies tip for years before they built on it. Time will tell if they cause trouble or damage.[/p][/quote]When travellers travel, they have to stop somewhere. All of their traditional sites have been sold off or built over, so where ARE they going to stop now there is no common land? We must all share a collective blame for refusing to face the facts.[/p][/quote]That's part of the issue though; they don't spend enough time travelling. Once every ten days or so from one park to the next then rest up again. So what's that, about 1% of the time travelling? And there's plenty of places they can stay, they're called campsites.[/p][/quote]On a campsite ..... I think not !!!!! The campsite owner would have no other paying customers .... who would want to pay to camp with the "travellers". They should be escorted to the border of another county and got rid of!!![/p][/quote]I'm just making the point that there are places they could go to if they really wanted to be accepted. loftusrod
  • Score: 2

9:28pm Tue 20 May 14

carrrob says...

Butt your a typical nimby !! Pathetic
Butt your a typical nimby !! Pathetic carrrob
  • Score: 1

10:54pm Tue 20 May 14

utciad says...

pacerman wrote:
hamworthygirl wrote:
fairandsquared wrote:
Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.
Have to agree with some of this post ,i dont like travellers using our green spaces but the hysteria ive seen in hamworthy this week has made me laugh. Weve always had them, they used to park in lake road on brooksies tip for years before they built on it. Time will tell if they cause trouble or damage.
When travellers travel, they have to stop somewhere. All of their traditional sites have been sold off or built over, so where ARE they going to stop now there is no common land? We must all share a collective blame for refusing to face the facts.
How about CARAVAN PARKS like the rest of us have to use!!!!
Ah, of course, they HAVE TO PAY for those, don;t they??
'travellers' want it al;l FREE!! so they just decide to 'take ovewr' the public open spaces.

Why not do what all the rest of us have to do....ie: PAY FOR YOUR HOLIDAY.
because that's what it is to these 'travellers'. No more than a means to get a FREE HOLIDAY at OUR expense.
It's not as if they can't afford to pay the caravan sites prices, most of their vehicles are top of the range, expensive vans and towcars...

The fact is, they play the system, and the stupid council/police let them get away with it!!!

You try doing the same and you end up in court quicker than that, these 'travellers' frighten the s**t out of the council and the police, (who prefer to targer easier 'victims' who won't/can't fight back.

As for Mr Underhill. Once AGAIN...missing in action.....
[quote][p][bold]pacerman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hamworthygirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fairandsquared[/bold] wrote: Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.[/p][/quote]Have to agree with some of this post ,i dont like travellers using our green spaces but the hysteria ive seen in hamworthy this week has made me laugh. Weve always had them, they used to park in lake road on brooksies tip for years before they built on it. Time will tell if they cause trouble or damage.[/p][/quote]When travellers travel, they have to stop somewhere. All of their traditional sites have been sold off or built over, so where ARE they going to stop now there is no common land? We must all share a collective blame for refusing to face the facts.[/p][/quote]How about CARAVAN PARKS like the rest of us have to use!!!! Ah, of course, they HAVE TO PAY for those, don;t they?? 'travellers' want it al;l FREE!! so they just decide to 'take ovewr' the public open spaces. Why not do what all the rest of us have to do....ie: PAY FOR YOUR HOLIDAY. because that's what it is to these 'travellers'. No more than a means to get a FREE HOLIDAY at OUR expense. It's not as if they can't afford to pay the caravan sites prices, most of their vehicles are top of the range, expensive vans and towcars... The fact is, they play the system, and the stupid council/police let them get away with it!!! You try doing the same and you end up in court quicker than that, these 'travellers' frighten the s**t out of the council and the police, (who prefer to targer easier 'victims' who won't/can't fight back. As for Mr Underhill. Once AGAIN...missing in action..... utciad
  • Score: 3

12:01am Wed 21 May 14

muscliffman says...

hamuser wrote:
Lets be clear.........most of the so called " Travellers" are people with houses in Ireland who choose to spend a few months touring various locations in England with their expensive caravans and modern vehicles. Unlike anyone else who may choose to do that, their expectation is to be able to pitch wherever they like without paying. I see no reason to have to find temporary or permanent sites for these people. If they have a house......anywhere.

....then they have somewhere else they can go. The reason a different set of rules applies to these people is purely because of the level of anti social behaviour and even violence they are prepared to display when faced with any form of authority. Seizing assets to pay for the damage etc they cause is the best way to discourage them..........and taking action to immediately remove them from any private or public land.
So you think "most of the so called " Travellers" are people with houses in Ireland"? So please explain their strong British accents as already noted in this forum and the brand new British mainland plated vehicles they are also reported to have arrived in......

Not of course that any of our public servants are apparently investigating the possibility that these latest 'travellers' are not simply a bunch of unpleasant caravanning residential Brits taking even more of the mickey out of us all than we realised.

BTW, Any word from our PCC yet?
[quote][p][bold]hamuser[/bold] wrote: Lets be clear.........most of the so called " Travellers" are people with houses in Ireland who choose to spend a few months touring various locations in England with their expensive caravans and modern vehicles. Unlike anyone else who may choose to do that, their expectation is to be able to pitch wherever they like without paying. I see no reason to have to find temporary or permanent sites for these people. If they have a house......anywhere. ....then they have somewhere else they can go. The reason a different set of rules applies to these people is purely because of the level of anti social behaviour and even violence they are prepared to display when faced with any form of authority. Seizing assets to pay for the damage etc they cause is the best way to discourage them..........and taking action to immediately remove them from any private or public land.[/p][/quote]So you think "most of the so called " Travellers" are people with houses in Ireland"? So please explain their strong British accents as already noted in this forum and the brand new British mainland plated vehicles they are also reported to have arrived in...... Not of course that any of our public servants are apparently investigating the possibility that these latest 'travellers' are not simply a bunch of unpleasant caravanning residential Brits taking even more of the mickey out of us all than we realised. BTW, Any word from our PCC yet? muscliffman
  • Score: 1

12:27am Wed 21 May 14

HRH of Boscombe says...

BarrHumbug wrote:
shaft wrote:
Where have the good old days gone when you would greet your new neighbours with a homemade cake or give out afternoon tea invites.
It all stopped when they nicked the kettle ;)
and the kitchen sink...
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaft[/bold] wrote: Where have the good old days gone when you would greet your new neighbours with a homemade cake or give out afternoon tea invites.[/p][/quote]It all stopped when they nicked the kettle ;)[/p][/quote]and the kitchen sink... HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: 2

12:32am Wed 21 May 14

HRH of Boscombe says...

fairandsquared wrote:
Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.
The Flu only stays a week or so but it's still not a nice experience.
[quote][p][bold]fairandsquared[/bold] wrote: Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.[/p][/quote]The Flu only stays a week or so but it's still not a nice experience. HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: 2

3:50am Wed 21 May 14

guisselle says...

pacerman wrote:
hamworthygirl wrote:
fairandsquared wrote:
Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.
Have to agree with some of this post ,i dont like travellers using our green spaces but the hysteria ive seen in hamworthy this week has made me laugh. Weve always had them, they used to park in lake road on brooksies tip for years before they built on it. Time will tell if they cause trouble or damage.
When travellers travel, they have to stop somewhere. All of their traditional sites have been sold off or built over, so where ARE they going to stop now there is no common land? We must all share a collective blame for refusing to face the facts.
Aha now what's the difference when most of the council houses are sold off. We
could all be in caravans the way its going!
[quote][p][bold]pacerman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hamworthygirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fairandsquared[/bold] wrote: Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.[/p][/quote]Have to agree with some of this post ,i dont like travellers using our green spaces but the hysteria ive seen in hamworthy this week has made me laugh. Weve always had them, they used to park in lake road on brooksies tip for years before they built on it. Time will tell if they cause trouble or damage.[/p][/quote]When travellers travel, they have to stop somewhere. All of their traditional sites have been sold off or built over, so where ARE they going to stop now there is no common land? We must all share a collective blame for refusing to face the facts.[/p][/quote]Aha now what's the difference when most of the council houses are sold off. We could all be in caravans the way its going! guisselle
  • Score: -2

7:19am Wed 21 May 14

Baysider says...

muscliffman wrote:
hamuser wrote:
Lets be clear.........most of the so called " Travellers" are people with houses in Ireland who choose to spend a few months touring various locations in England with their expensive caravans and modern vehicles. Unlike anyone else who may choose to do that, their expectation is to be able to pitch wherever they like without paying. I see no reason to have to find temporary or permanent sites for these people. If they have a house......anywhere.


....then they have somewhere else they can go. The reason a different set of rules applies to these people is purely because of the level of anti social behaviour and even violence they are prepared to display when faced with any form of authority. Seizing assets to pay for the damage etc they cause is the best way to discourage them..........and taking action to immediately remove them from any private or public land.
So you think "most of the so called " Travellers" are people with houses in Ireland"? So please explain their strong British accents as already noted in this forum and the brand new British mainland plated vehicles they are also reported to have arrived in......

Not of course that any of our public servants are apparently investigating the possibility that these latest 'travellers' are not simply a bunch of unpleasant caravanning residential Brits taking even more of the mickey out of us all than we realised.

BTW, Any word from our PCC yet?
So to summarise the genious of Muzzy...you think that all that is required to establish someones ethnicity is whether they have British number plates or speak with a Scouse accent*??? Well that sounds more than enough to risk a potentially extremely expensive civil case on doesn't it and must make those 100,000's of Brits on the Costas effectively Spanish if they've obeyed the law and registered their car in Malaga or whatever.

Honestly, stop trying to turn a difficult problem into a simple one just so you can get off on having yet another go at public sector employees.

*btw it was ONE poster who said they'd heard ONE traveller speak with a Scouse accent...but you're not really interested in facts or perspective are you!
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hamuser[/bold] wrote: Lets be clear.........most of the so called " Travellers" are people with houses in Ireland who choose to spend a few months touring various locations in England with their expensive caravans and modern vehicles. Unlike anyone else who may choose to do that, their expectation is to be able to pitch wherever they like without paying. I see no reason to have to find temporary or permanent sites for these people. If they have a house......anywhere. ....then they have somewhere else they can go. The reason a different set of rules applies to these people is purely because of the level of anti social behaviour and even violence they are prepared to display when faced with any form of authority. Seizing assets to pay for the damage etc they cause is the best way to discourage them..........and taking action to immediately remove them from any private or public land.[/p][/quote]So you think "most of the so called " Travellers" are people with houses in Ireland"? So please explain their strong British accents as already noted in this forum and the brand new British mainland plated vehicles they are also reported to have arrived in...... Not of course that any of our public servants are apparently investigating the possibility that these latest 'travellers' are not simply a bunch of unpleasant caravanning residential Brits taking even more of the mickey out of us all than we realised. BTW, Any word from our PCC yet?[/p][/quote]So to summarise the genious of Muzzy...you think that all that is required to establish someones ethnicity is whether they have British number plates or speak with a Scouse accent*??? Well that sounds more than enough to risk a potentially extremely expensive civil case on doesn't it and must make those 100,000's of Brits on the Costas effectively Spanish if they've obeyed the law and registered their car in Malaga or whatever. Honestly, stop trying to turn a difficult problem into a simple one just so you can get off on having yet another go at public sector employees. *btw it was ONE poster who said they'd heard ONE traveller speak with a Scouse accent...but you're not really interested in facts or perspective are you! Baysider
  • Score: 1

10:35am Wed 21 May 14

live-and-let-live says...

pacerman wrote:
hamworthygirl wrote:
fairandsquared wrote:
Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.
Have to agree with some of this post ,i dont like travellers using our green spaces but the hysteria ive seen in hamworthy this week has made me laugh. Weve always had them, they used to park in lake road on brooksies tip for years before they built on it. Time will tell if they cause trouble or damage.
When travellers travel, they have to stop somewhere. All of their traditional sites have been sold off or built over, so where ARE they going to stop now there is no common land? We must all share a collective blame for refusing to face the facts.
their traditional sites are in Ireland where they all come from. they could go back if there are no sites provide here for nothg
[quote][p][bold]pacerman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hamworthygirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fairandsquared[/bold] wrote: Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.[/p][/quote]Have to agree with some of this post ,i dont like travellers using our green spaces but the hysteria ive seen in hamworthy this week has made me laugh. Weve always had them, they used to park in lake road on brooksies tip for years before they built on it. Time will tell if they cause trouble or damage.[/p][/quote]When travellers travel, they have to stop somewhere. All of their traditional sites have been sold off or built over, so where ARE they going to stop now there is no common land? We must all share a collective blame for refusing to face the facts.[/p][/quote]their traditional sites are in Ireland where they all come from. they could go back if there are no sites provide here for nothg live-and-let-live
  • Score: 1

6:16pm Wed 21 May 14

cromwell9 says...

guisselle wrote:
pacerman wrote:
hamworthygirl wrote:
fairandsquared wrote:
Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.
Have to agree with some of this post ,i dont like travellers using our green spaces but the hysteria ive seen in hamworthy this week has made me laugh. Weve always had them, they used to park in lake road on brooksies tip for years before they built on it. Time will tell if they cause trouble or damage.
When travellers travel, they have to stop somewhere. All of their traditional sites have been sold off or built over, so where ARE they going to stop now there is no common land? We must all share a collective blame for refusing to face the facts.
Aha now what's the difference when most of the council houses are sold off. We
could all be in caravans the way its going!
dont be silly,
[quote][p][bold]guisselle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pacerman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hamworthygirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fairandsquared[/bold] wrote: Carolyn 43 sounds too much like Cllr Butt !!! This happens every year, and why are a few Travellers people's worst nightmare? Have they hurt anyone, have they stolen anything, have they wrecked anything.. Apart from being there illegally which we all hate? I was brought up in Poole and they came into town a gazillion years ago, long before some of the complaining locals moved here, whatever happened to tolerance, they only stay a week or so before getting moved on.[/p][/quote]Have to agree with some of this post ,i dont like travellers using our green spaces but the hysteria ive seen in hamworthy this week has made me laugh. Weve always had them, they used to park in lake road on brooksies tip for years before they built on it. Time will tell if they cause trouble or damage.[/p][/quote]When travellers travel, they have to stop somewhere. All of their traditional sites have been sold off or built over, so where ARE they going to stop now there is no common land? We must all share a collective blame for refusing to face the facts.[/p][/quote]Aha now what's the difference when most of the council houses are sold off. We could all be in caravans the way its going![/p][/quote]dont be silly, cromwell9
  • Score: 0

6:17pm Wed 21 May 14

cromwell9 says...

Rockley66 wrote:
Tony Trent wrote:
Rockley66 wrote:
Tony Trent wrote:
Rockley66 wrote:
The Police have powers to remove these people. Section 61 Criminal Justice Public Order Act 1994, provides police with a power to remove travellers if there are more than six vehicles, or if criminal damage has been caused. They cut the padlock, causing damage. Other UK forces use and enforce this power, Dorset Police do not. The travellers are quiet open about this and comment that this is why they stay in the county of Dorset, knowing that it is not used. I would encourage residents to contact both the Chief Constable and newly appointed Police and Crime Commissioner to ask why they are not using powers given to them by government.
The advice was that there are very few circumstances under which you can use Section 61 WITHOUT a permanant site or TSP, otherwise it would likely be being used as a first resort already. If there are FACTS that can be presented, with back up information, that can be looked at properly, I would be happy, as the appropriate Scrutiny Chair, to get them looked at and scrutinised when this Summer's experiences are reviewed in he Autumn. Sniping annonimously in a forum will not get anything changed, active engagement, armed with facts, just might!
Mr Trent, your comments are both discourteous and lack knowledge of the facts and subject. I was present when these travellers moved onto the site. I witnessed at first hand, residents calling the police and providing descriptions of the suspect that had removed the post by causing criminal damage. These details were also broadcast on the police radios, which I heard as we spoke to the officers that arrived. These will have been recorded on the police call system. I also have many years of operational experience of using Section 61 in a former life. Perhaps you will now concentrate your efforts in this regard rather than criticising people who are holding those in positions of responsibility to account regarding this matter
If your facts disagree with the Police and legal advice - share them in an open way where they can be researched or challenged if need be, or questions asked. If you know better than the experts you have the opportunity to present your information later in the year. Four minutes (two is better) or a side of A4 is a good guideline. There are people ready to listen. Sniping anonimously on an online forum is not holding peole to account. Most people who have influence have stopped reading these forums long ago!
Mr Trent. The comments placed on here were for the benefit of my neighbours and fellow residents, who like me have this problem on our doorstep. Your posts and comments speak volumes to the local community and I for one am not interested in your offer to look at the problem later in the Autumn when you, in your very important role as Chair of the Scrutiny Committee will review these events. This matter is live to those of us that live here at the moment. The law has been broken. For clarity, when someone hears something first hand verbatim, that is a statement of fact. When they hear it via a third party or secondhand that is hearsay. I think enough information has been provided to the police in relation to this matter and the posts on this forum for any genuine interested party to research , verify and act upon if necessary. That quite clearly does not apply to you. I do not intend getting involved further in your pointless exchanges with your personal opinions. The info I have placed here is both factual and accurate. If you choose to dismiss that information then then is a matter for you.
Mr Trent is a LIB DEM ,O DEAR
[quote][p][bold]Rockley66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rockley66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rockley66[/bold] wrote: The Police have powers to remove these people. Section 61 Criminal Justice Public Order Act 1994, provides police with a power to remove travellers if there are more than six vehicles, or if criminal damage has been caused. They cut the padlock, causing damage. Other UK forces use and enforce this power, Dorset Police do not. The travellers are quiet open about this and comment that this is why they stay in the county of Dorset, knowing that it is not used. I would encourage residents to contact both the Chief Constable and newly appointed Police and Crime Commissioner to ask why they are not using powers given to them by government.[/p][/quote]The advice was that there are very few circumstances under which you can use Section 61 WITHOUT a permanant site or TSP, otherwise it would likely be being used as a first resort already. If there are FACTS that can be presented, with back up information, that can be looked at properly, I would be happy, as the appropriate Scrutiny Chair, to get them looked at and scrutinised when this Summer's experiences are reviewed in he Autumn. Sniping annonimously in a forum will not get anything changed, active engagement, armed with facts, just might![/p][/quote]Mr Trent, your comments are both discourteous and lack knowledge of the facts and subject. I was present when these travellers moved onto the site. I witnessed at first hand, residents calling the police and providing descriptions of the suspect that had removed the post by causing criminal damage. These details were also broadcast on the police radios, which I heard as we spoke to the officers that arrived. These will have been recorded on the police call system. I also have many years of operational experience of using Section 61 in a former life. Perhaps you will now concentrate your efforts in this regard rather than criticising people who are holding those in positions of responsibility to account regarding this matter[/p][/quote]If your facts disagree with the Police and legal advice - share them in an open way where they can be researched or challenged if need be, or questions asked. If you know better than the experts you have the opportunity to present your information later in the year. Four minutes (two is better) or a side of A4 is a good guideline. There are people ready to listen. Sniping anonimously on an online forum is not holding peole to account. Most people who have influence have stopped reading these forums long ago![/p][/quote]Mr Trent. The comments placed on here were for the benefit of my neighbours and fellow residents, who like me have this problem on our doorstep. Your posts and comments speak volumes to the local community and I for one am not interested in your offer to look at the problem later in the Autumn when you, in your very important role as Chair of the Scrutiny Committee will review these events. This matter is live to those of us that live here at the moment. The law has been broken. For clarity, when someone hears something first hand verbatim, that is a statement of fact. When they hear it via a third party or secondhand that is hearsay. I think enough information has been provided to the police in relation to this matter and the posts on this forum for any genuine interested party to research , verify and act upon if necessary. That quite clearly does not apply to you. I do not intend getting involved further in your pointless exchanges with your personal opinions. The info I have placed here is both factual and accurate. If you choose to dismiss that information then then is a matter for you.[/p][/quote]Mr Trent is a LIB DEM ,O DEAR cromwell9
  • Score: 0

6:19pm Wed 21 May 14

cromwell9 says...

hamuser wrote:
Lets be clear.........most of the so called " Travellers" are people with houses in Ireland who choose to spend a few months touring various locations in England with their expensive caravans and modern vehicles. Unlike anyone else who may choose to do that, their expectation is to be able to pitch wherever they like without paying. I see no reason to have to find temporary or permanent sites for these people. If they have a house......anywhere.

....then they have somewhere else they can go. The reason a different set of rules applies to these people is purely because of the level of anti social behaviour and even violence they are prepared to display when faced with any form of authority. Seizing assets to pay for the damage etc they cause is the best way to discourage them..........and taking action to immediately remove them from any private or public land.
NOt a CHANCE.LIB /LAB CON would never alow it,
[quote][p][bold]hamuser[/bold] wrote: Lets be clear.........most of the so called " Travellers" are people with houses in Ireland who choose to spend a few months touring various locations in England with their expensive caravans and modern vehicles. Unlike anyone else who may choose to do that, their expectation is to be able to pitch wherever they like without paying. I see no reason to have to find temporary or permanent sites for these people. If they have a house......anywhere. ....then they have somewhere else they can go. The reason a different set of rules applies to these people is purely because of the level of anti social behaviour and even violence they are prepared to display when faced with any form of authority. Seizing assets to pay for the damage etc they cause is the best way to discourage them..........and taking action to immediately remove them from any private or public land.[/p][/quote]NOt a CHANCE.LIB /LAB CON would never alow it, cromwell9
  • Score: 0

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