Travellers move onto land near Castlepoint shopping centre

Bournemouth Echo: Travellers move onto land near Castlepoint shopping centre Travellers move onto land near Castlepoint shopping centre

A SMALL number of travellers have moved onto land near Castlepoint shopping centre.

Two caravans and a campervan are currently on site at the back of Setley Gardens in Throop, close to a children’s play area.

Bournemouth council has arranged for a needs assessment to be carried out and has brought in security to prevent any further caravans gaining access.

Throop councillor Anne Rey has thanked staff and PCSOs for their swift action. And fellow ward councillor Ron Whittaker has called for rock boulders to be installed after the travellers have left to prevent further incursions.

Comments (42)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:35pm Fri 4 Jul 14

BarrHumbug says...

a "needs assessment" what the hell is that?

I'll tell you what they need, they need turfing off!
a "needs assessment" what the hell is that? I'll tell you what they need, they need turfing off! BarrHumbug
  • Score: 60

5:07pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Understated says...

have them camp on the carpark after closing hours, take away the support structures. rebuild over the wreckage the following morning.

two birds with one stone
have them camp on the carpark after closing hours, take away the support structures. rebuild over the wreckage the following morning. two birds with one stone Understated
  • Score: 31

5:09pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Bob Bournemouth says...

They'll find anywhere to put their caravans. Beware householders who have a small bit of land next to them - you'll be next!
They'll find anywhere to put their caravans. Beware householders who have a small bit of land next to them - you'll be next! Bob Bournemouth
  • Score: 22

5:16pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Townee says...

If they want to get in then they will by fair or foul means.
If they want to get in then they will by fair or foul means. Townee
  • Score: 13

5:26pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Rasta dude says...

My god here we go again if people don't employ the scumbags then they will leave same problem as last year,lock your stuff up people .....
My god here we go again if people don't employ the scumbags then they will leave same problem as last year,lock your stuff up people ..... Rasta dude
  • Score: 20

5:42pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Peroni says...

What is the point of putting rocks and boulders !
They have done this at white cliff , at a cost of nearly £250000.
But the year before 2 police officers were standing by one of the gates when they hit off the padlock ! And did nothing !
So what is the point , more waste of public money.
You can put rocks ,boulders ,fences etc, but if they are allowed to pull off gates ,locks or fences .....wtf !
What is the point of putting rocks and boulders ! They have done this at white cliff , at a cost of nearly £250000. But the year before 2 police officers were standing by one of the gates when they hit off the padlock ! And did nothing ! So what is the point , more waste of public money. You can put rocks ,boulders ,fences etc, but if they are allowed to pull off gates ,locks or fences .....wtf ! Peroni
  • Score: 31

5:53pm Fri 4 Jul 14

norfy39 says...

Which bright spark took the railings down and gate to make it easier for them to access the area. They were erected after the last invasion and appeared to be doing the job, a few months after they have been removed look what's happened!!
Which bright spark took the railings down and gate to make it easier for them to access the area. They were erected after the last invasion and appeared to be doing the job, a few months after they have been removed look what's happened!! norfy39
  • Score: 20

6:14pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Peroni says...

norfy39 wrote:
Which bright spark took the railings down and gate to make it easier for them to access the area. They were erected after the last invasion and appeared to be doing the job, a few months after they have been removed look what's happened!!
Seemed to be working ?
At Branksome recreation ground ,they just pulled off the metal low level rails ,and the police told the public to get out of the way of the 'travellers' when they were trying to stop them entering and leaving .
Police need to grow some !!!
[quote][p][bold]norfy39[/bold] wrote: Which bright spark took the railings down and gate to make it easier for them to access the area. They were erected after the last invasion and appeared to be doing the job, a few months after they have been removed look what's happened!![/p][/quote]Seemed to be working ? At Branksome recreation ground ,they just pulled off the metal low level rails ,and the police told the public to get out of the way of the 'travellers' when they were trying to stop them entering and leaving . Police need to grow some !!! Peroni
  • Score: 26

6:31pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Carolyn43 says...

The authorities always say they can't prosecute when they break into an area because they don't know who has actually done it and they can't prosecute the innocent.

But, when it suits, a prosecution can be brought for "joint enterprise", i.e. all those involved, whether or not they actually did anything. So why can't they use "joint enterprise" when a group sets up camp after one of them has had to break in?

I genuinely want to know.
The authorities always say they can't prosecute when they break into an area because they don't know who has actually done it and they can't prosecute the innocent. But, when it suits, a prosecution can be brought for "joint enterprise", i.e. all those involved, whether or not they actually did anything. So why can't they use "joint enterprise" when a group sets up camp after one of them has had to break in? I genuinely want to know. Carolyn43
  • Score: 15

6:46pm Fri 4 Jul 14

muscliffman says...

I hear the Chief Executive of Bournemouth Council and the Dorset PCC are both immediately heading to the illegally invaded site to take joint personal charge of the situation on behalf of all law abiding and taxpaying Bournemouth residents.

No......... I didn't believe it either!
I hear the Chief Executive of Bournemouth Council and the Dorset PCC are both immediately heading to the illegally invaded site to take joint personal charge of the situation on behalf of all law abiding and taxpaying Bournemouth residents. No......... I didn't believe it either! muscliffman
  • Score: 15

7:20pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Baysider says...

I see the £10,000's spent on the "lock down" policy is paying off again then.
I see the £10,000's spent on the "lock down" policy is paying off again then. Baysider
  • Score: 6

7:21pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

Perhaps it would be better if the rocks and boulders were put in place to prevent them from leaving and then leave them there until they rot.
Perhaps it would be better if the rocks and boulders were put in place to prevent them from leaving and then leave them there until they rot. Hessenford
  • Score: 24

8:08pm Fri 4 Jul 14

MMM444 says...

BarrHumbug wrote:
a "needs assessment" what the hell is that?

I'll tell you what they need, they need turfing off!
a "needs assessment" what the hell is that?, it's to see if there all right for blankets and that, or if they want a takeaway pizza, confiscate there vehicles is what they need to do, then give em a lift to the M27 and wish em luck
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: a "needs assessment" what the hell is that? I'll tell you what they need, they need turfing off![/p][/quote]a "needs assessment" what the hell is that?, it's to see if there all right for blankets and that, or if they want a takeaway pizza, confiscate there vehicles is what they need to do, then give em a lift to the M27 and wish em luck MMM444
  • Score: 21

8:55pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Baysider says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
The authorities always say they can't prosecute when they break into an area because they don't know who has actually done it and they can't prosecute the innocent.

But, when it suits, a prosecution can be brought for "joint enterprise", i.e. all those involved, whether or not they actually did anything. So why can't they use "joint enterprise" when a group sets up camp after one of them has had to break in?

I genuinely want to know.
Firstly, you would still have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that everyone charged encouraged or assisted in the offence. Secondly you would likely be laughed out of court for trying to pursue such an (extraordinarly expensive) case when it is normally reserved for murder and not a bit of very low level criminal damage. Is that enough reason for you or are you happy to carry on playing barrack room lawyer just because you've seen a thriller on the tele?
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: The authorities always say they can't prosecute when they break into an area because they don't know who has actually done it and they can't prosecute the innocent. But, when it suits, a prosecution can be brought for "joint enterprise", i.e. all those involved, whether or not they actually did anything. So why can't they use "joint enterprise" when a group sets up camp after one of them has had to break in? I genuinely want to know.[/p][/quote]Firstly, you would still have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that everyone charged encouraged or assisted in the offence. Secondly you would likely be laughed out of court for trying to pursue such an (extraordinarly expensive) case when it is normally reserved for murder and not a bit of very low level criminal damage. Is that enough reason for you or are you happy to carry on playing barrack room lawyer just because you've seen a thriller on the tele? Baysider
  • Score: -17

9:23pm Fri 4 Jul 14

wonderway says...

check if they have passports if not remove them if they have deport them simple

this is total bull from council checking their needs as a ethnic minority they have no legal standing as own country does not recognise them in France it would be go now
why is their question
answer this glock automatic is the answer

trespass and criminal damage total is second nature to these parasites additional expense local communities just bulldoze them from area let them take council to court this time not us footing the bill clear them out

i am not racist in any shape or form but this is a yearly joke that has to stop they act as beyond the law and our wimp police and councils have no back bone to invoke what local people who pay their taxes want and we do not want people like this who just want a freebies at others peoples expense. enforce the law to the same standard as you would english people.
check if they have passports if not remove them if they have deport them simple this is total bull from council checking their needs as a ethnic minority they have no legal standing as own country does not recognise them in France it would be go now why is their question answer this glock automatic is the answer trespass and criminal damage total is second nature to these parasites additional expense local communities just bulldoze them from area let them take council to court this time not us footing the bill clear them out i am not racist in any shape or form but this is a yearly joke that has to stop they act as beyond the law and our wimp police and councils have no back bone to invoke what local people who pay their taxes want and we do not want people like this who just want a freebies at others peoples expense. enforce the law to the same standard as you would english people. wonderway
  • Score: 21

9:57pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Baysider says...

wonderway wrote:
check if they have passports if not remove them if they have deport them simple

this is total bull from council checking their needs as a ethnic minority they have no legal standing as own country does not recognise them in France it would be go now
why is their question
answer this glock automatic is the answer

trespass and criminal damage total is second nature to these parasites additional expense local communities just bulldoze them from area let them take council to court this time not us footing the bill clear them out

i am not racist in any shape or form but this is a yearly joke that has to stop they act as beyond the law and our wimp police and councils have no back bone to invoke what local people who pay their taxes want and we do not want people like this who just want a freebies at others peoples expense. enforce the law to the same standard as you would english people.
Er....if you say so.
[quote][p][bold]wonderway[/bold] wrote: check if they have passports if not remove them if they have deport them simple this is total bull from council checking their needs as a ethnic minority they have no legal standing as own country does not recognise them in France it would be go now why is their question answer this glock automatic is the answer trespass and criminal damage total is second nature to these parasites additional expense local communities just bulldoze them from area let them take council to court this time not us footing the bill clear them out i am not racist in any shape or form but this is a yearly joke that has to stop they act as beyond the law and our wimp police and councils have no back bone to invoke what local people who pay their taxes want and we do not want people like this who just want a freebies at others peoples expense. enforce the law to the same standard as you would english people.[/p][/quote]Er....if you say so. Baysider
  • Score: -14

10:04pm Fri 4 Jul 14

rotcoddam says...

Ok first off some half wit euro judge has decreed irish travellers are a protected minority. Which most sane people think is total *&€£!;:/"**.No local authourity seems to have the backbone to stand up to this palpable nonsense. So are we to understand that anybody can park up a caravan or motor home and when an official turns up simply say "top o the morning guv, oi be an oirish traveller bejabers". Surely they can be asked to produce documents to verify their claim. As to the best of my knowledge no such paperwork can exist, as Ireland doesn,t recognise them as anything other than irish, so the distinction traveller will not be on their papers. So why should protected minority status and benifit be given to those who can,t prove entitlement.
The authourities need absolute concrete proof of the perpetrator to prosecute. Really so if I trip a speed camera they have to prove conclusively that I was driving???????. really.....We would all like the high court to clarify that one.

Which part of protected minority status gives imunity from criminal and civil law, such as failing to pay the car park fees, allowing underage unlicenced persons to drive motor vehicles, failing to control ones dog, dumping litter, fly tipping and a whole list of anti social behavior transgressions, kids out of school during term time etc etc.
If these holiday makers behaved like any other campers and caravaners, turned up observed the normal camp rules of reasonable behavior and left the site clean and tidy as they found it, then few would have any problem or objection to them. But they don,t they leave an horrendous mess everywhere they pitch up, that,s why they are so unwelcome. It has nothing to do with their racial heritage.
Ok first off some half wit euro judge has decreed irish travellers are a protected minority. Which most sane people think is total *&€£!;:/"**.No local authourity seems to have the backbone to stand up to this palpable nonsense. So are we to understand that anybody can park up a caravan or motor home and when an official turns up simply say "top o the morning guv, oi be an oirish traveller bejabers". Surely they can be asked to produce documents to verify their claim. As to the best of my knowledge no such paperwork can exist, as Ireland doesn,t recognise them as anything other than irish, so the distinction traveller will not be on their papers. So why should protected minority status and benifit be given to those who can,t prove entitlement. The authourities need absolute concrete proof of the perpetrator to prosecute. Really so if I trip a speed camera they have to prove conclusively that I was driving???????. really.....We would all like the high court to clarify that one. Which part of protected minority status gives imunity from criminal and civil law, such as failing to pay the car park fees, allowing underage unlicenced persons to drive motor vehicles, failing to control ones dog, dumping litter, fly tipping and a whole list of anti social behavior transgressions, kids out of school during term time etc etc. If these holiday makers behaved like any other campers and caravaners, turned up observed the normal camp rules of reasonable behavior and left the site clean and tidy as they found it, then few would have any problem or objection to them. But they don,t they leave an horrendous mess everywhere they pitch up, that,s why they are so unwelcome. It has nothing to do with their racial heritage. rotcoddam
  • Score: 17

10:11pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Baysider says...

rotcoddam wrote:
Ok first off some half wit euro judge has decreed irish travellers are a protected minority. Which most sane people think is total *&€£!;:/&quot
;**.No local authourity seems to have the backbone to stand up to this palpable nonsense. So are we to understand that anybody can park up a caravan or motor home and when an official turns up simply say "top o the morning guv, oi be an oirish traveller bejabers". Surely they can be asked to produce documents to verify their claim. As to the best of my knowledge no such paperwork can exist, as Ireland doesn,t recognise them as anything other than irish, so the distinction traveller will not be on their papers. So why should protected minority status and benifit be given to those who can,t prove entitlement.
The authourities need absolute concrete proof of the perpetrator to prosecute. Really so if I trip a speed camera they have to prove conclusively that I was driving???????. really.....We would all like the high court to clarify that one.

Which part of protected minority status gives imunity from criminal and civil law, such as failing to pay the car park fees, allowing underage unlicenced persons to drive motor vehicles, failing to control ones dog, dumping litter, fly tipping and a whole list of anti social behavior transgressions, kids out of school during term time etc etc.
If these holiday makers behaved like any other campers and caravaners, turned up observed the normal camp rules of reasonable behavior and left the site clean and tidy as they found it, then few would have any problem or objection to them. But they don,t they leave an horrendous mess everywhere they pitch up, that,s why they are so unwelcome. It has nothing to do with their racial heritage.
I never realised we had so many barristers posting on here...but well done for managing to repeat every legally impossible cliché about the issue in one hit though. Pssst..it was an English court btw.
[quote][p][bold]rotcoddam[/bold] wrote: Ok first off some half wit euro judge has decreed irish travellers are a protected minority. Which most sane people think is total *&€£!;:/" ;**.No local authourity seems to have the backbone to stand up to this palpable nonsense. So are we to understand that anybody can park up a caravan or motor home and when an official turns up simply say "top o the morning guv, oi be an oirish traveller bejabers". Surely they can be asked to produce documents to verify their claim. As to the best of my knowledge no such paperwork can exist, as Ireland doesn,t recognise them as anything other than irish, so the distinction traveller will not be on their papers. So why should protected minority status and benifit be given to those who can,t prove entitlement. The authourities need absolute concrete proof of the perpetrator to prosecute. Really so if I trip a speed camera they have to prove conclusively that I was driving???????. really.....We would all like the high court to clarify that one. Which part of protected minority status gives imunity from criminal and civil law, such as failing to pay the car park fees, allowing underage unlicenced persons to drive motor vehicles, failing to control ones dog, dumping litter, fly tipping and a whole list of anti social behavior transgressions, kids out of school during term time etc etc. If these holiday makers behaved like any other campers and caravaners, turned up observed the normal camp rules of reasonable behavior and left the site clean and tidy as they found it, then few would have any problem or objection to them. But they don,t they leave an horrendous mess everywhere they pitch up, that,s why they are so unwelcome. It has nothing to do with their racial heritage.[/p][/quote]I never realised we had so many barristers posting on here...but well done for managing to repeat every legally impossible cliché about the issue in one hit though. Pssst..it was an English court btw. Baysider
  • Score: -14

10:58pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Wageslave says...

Hessenford wrote:
Perhaps it would be better if the rocks and boulders were put in place to prevent them from leaving and then leave them there until they rot.
So I guess you live nowhere near Throop or you would not want to leave them next to your house.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: Perhaps it would be better if the rocks and boulders were put in place to prevent them from leaving and then leave them there until they rot.[/p][/quote]So I guess you live nowhere near Throop or you would not want to leave them next to your house. Wageslave
  • Score: -1

11:18pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Baysider says...

Baysider wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
The authorities always say they can't prosecute when they break into an area because they don't know who has actually done it and they can't prosecute the innocent.

But, when it suits, a prosecution can be brought for "joint enterprise", i.e. all those involved, whether or not they actually did anything. So why can't they use "joint enterprise" when a group sets up camp after one of them has had to break in?

I genuinely want to know.
Firstly, you would still have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that everyone charged encouraged or assisted in the offence. Secondly you would likely be laughed out of court for trying to pursue such an (extraordinarly expensive) case when it is normally reserved for murder and not a bit of very low level criminal damage. Is that enough reason for you or are you happy to carry on playing barrack room lawyer just because you've seen a thriller on the tele?
Oh, I'm sorry. Was that not the answer to Carolyn's genuine question you wanted to hear? Forget that then and crack on thinking that a difficult problem is so easily resolved.
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: The authorities always say they can't prosecute when they break into an area because they don't know who has actually done it and they can't prosecute the innocent. But, when it suits, a prosecution can be brought for "joint enterprise", i.e. all those involved, whether or not they actually did anything. So why can't they use "joint enterprise" when a group sets up camp after one of them has had to break in? I genuinely want to know.[/p][/quote]Firstly, you would still have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that everyone charged encouraged or assisted in the offence. Secondly you would likely be laughed out of court for trying to pursue such an (extraordinarly expensive) case when it is normally reserved for murder and not a bit of very low level criminal damage. Is that enough reason for you or are you happy to carry on playing barrack room lawyer just because you've seen a thriller on the tele?[/p][/quote]Oh, I'm sorry. Was that not the answer to Carolyn's genuine question you wanted to hear? Forget that then and crack on thinking that a difficult problem is so easily resolved. Baysider
  • Score: -7

11:42pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Peroni says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
The authorities always say they can't prosecute when they break into an area because they don't know who has actually done it and they can't prosecute the innocent.

But, when it suits, a prosecution can be brought for "joint enterprise", i.e. all those involved, whether or not they actually did anything. So why can't they use "joint enterprise" when a group sets up camp after one of them has had to break in?

I genuinely want to know.
I would as well, as the police have been present on many occasions of actually breaking locks ect ,so if they are present when some one commits a crime of criminal damage ,why are they not dealt with.
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: The authorities always say they can't prosecute when they break into an area because they don't know who has actually done it and they can't prosecute the innocent. But, when it suits, a prosecution can be brought for "joint enterprise", i.e. all those involved, whether or not they actually did anything. So why can't they use "joint enterprise" when a group sets up camp after one of them has had to break in? I genuinely want to know.[/p][/quote]I would as well, as the police have been present on many occasions of actually breaking locks ect ,so if they are present when some one commits a crime of criminal damage ,why are they not dealt with. Peroni
  • Score: 13

11:49pm Fri 4 Jul 14

rotcoddam says...

Nobody is being a bar room lawyer on here. People are stating impressions they have been given by so called qualified people in various publications.
Fact if I pitch up in my caravan on public land I would get told to move and on refusing get prosecuted. If I wanted to claim some imunity i would have to prove entitlement, people are asking how that could be proven as the country issuing these folk with passports does not recogonise anything other than simply Irish, or so the newspapers tell us.
Fact if I let my unlicenced and under driving age son drive around on a public field I would be prosecuted.
Fact if I openly fly tip large amounts of rubbish I would be pursued by the law and get prosecuted.
Fact if me and my mates take bolt croppers to a locked gate or tear down a fence in view of police officers We would be up before the magistrate.
Fact if I park even a few inches over the markings in a public car park, let alone cook sell and sleep the night and fail to pay the appropriate fee, I am going to be the receipient of a few stiff fines.

So how exactly is people asking these questions being barrack room lawyers. Folks are asking that this unch of wandering riff raff be treated fairly and even handedly just like everyone else.
Nobody is being a bar room lawyer on here. People are stating impressions they have been given by so called qualified people in various publications. Fact if I pitch up in my caravan on public land I would get told to move and on refusing get prosecuted. If I wanted to claim some imunity i would have to prove entitlement, people are asking how that could be proven as the country issuing these folk with passports does not recogonise anything other than simply Irish, or so the newspapers tell us. Fact if I let my unlicenced and under driving age son drive around on a public field I would be prosecuted. Fact if I openly fly tip large amounts of rubbish I would be pursued by the law and get prosecuted. Fact if me and my mates take bolt croppers to a locked gate or tear down a fence in view of police officers We would be up before the magistrate. Fact if I park even a few inches over the markings in a public car park, let alone cook sell and sleep the night and fail to pay the appropriate fee, I am going to be the receipient of a few stiff fines. So how exactly is people asking these questions being barrack room lawyers. Folks are asking that this unch of wandering riff raff be treated fairly and even handedly just like everyone else. rotcoddam
  • Score: 16

5:37am Sat 5 Jul 14

Lord Parkstone says...

Maybe they have arrived to start the repair work on castle point car park? All that tarmac that needs doing. ........
Maybe they have arrived to start the repair work on castle point car park? All that tarmac that needs doing. ........ Lord Parkstone
  • Score: 12

7:32am Sat 5 Jul 14

S,Bowes says...

Why not do the,same as the shops are doing to put off shoplifters.A cardboard cut out policeman (laminated),at the entrance to every likely Irish caravan club site complete with a cheeky little logo ,"private property .please don't cut the lock" that should do it.
Why not do the,same as the shops are doing to put off shoplifters.A cardboard cut out policeman (laminated),at the entrance to every likely Irish caravan club site complete with a cheeky little logo ,"private property .please don't cut the lock" that should do it. S,Bowes
  • Score: 6

8:26am Sat 5 Jul 14

Carolyn43 says...

rotcoddam wrote:
Nobody is being a bar room lawyer on here. People are stating impressions they have been given by so called qualified people in various publications.
Fact if I pitch up in my caravan on public land I would get told to move and on refusing get prosecuted. If I wanted to claim some imunity i would have to prove entitlement, people are asking how that could be proven as the country issuing these folk with passports does not recogonise anything other than simply Irish, or so the newspapers tell us.
Fact if I let my unlicenced and under driving age son drive around on a public field I would be prosecuted.
Fact if I openly fly tip large amounts of rubbish I would be pursued by the law and get prosecuted.
Fact if me and my mates take bolt croppers to a locked gate or tear down a fence in view of police officers We would be up before the magistrate.
Fact if I park even a few inches over the markings in a public car park, let alone cook sell and sleep the night and fail to pay the appropriate fee, I am going to be the receipient of a few stiff fines.

So how exactly is people asking these questions being barrack room lawyers. Folks are asking that this unch of wandering riff raff be treated fairly and even handedly just like everyone else.
You have to remember that Baysider is an expert on absolutely everything and the rest of us are just ignorant peasants. He/she is also arrogant and ill-mannered to answer a genuine question in such a condescending manner.
[quote][p][bold]rotcoddam[/bold] wrote: Nobody is being a bar room lawyer on here. People are stating impressions they have been given by so called qualified people in various publications. Fact if I pitch up in my caravan on public land I would get told to move and on refusing get prosecuted. If I wanted to claim some imunity i would have to prove entitlement, people are asking how that could be proven as the country issuing these folk with passports does not recogonise anything other than simply Irish, or so the newspapers tell us. Fact if I let my unlicenced and under driving age son drive around on a public field I would be prosecuted. Fact if I openly fly tip large amounts of rubbish I would be pursued by the law and get prosecuted. Fact if me and my mates take bolt croppers to a locked gate or tear down a fence in view of police officers We would be up before the magistrate. Fact if I park even a few inches over the markings in a public car park, let alone cook sell and sleep the night and fail to pay the appropriate fee, I am going to be the receipient of a few stiff fines. So how exactly is people asking these questions being barrack room lawyers. Folks are asking that this unch of wandering riff raff be treated fairly and even handedly just like everyone else.[/p][/quote]You have to remember that Baysider is an expert on absolutely everything and the rest of us are just ignorant peasants. He/she is also arrogant and ill-mannered to answer a genuine question in such a condescending manner. Carolyn43
  • Score: 4

9:04am Sat 5 Jul 14

Baysider says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
rotcoddam wrote:
Nobody is being a bar room lawyer on here. People are stating impressions they have been given by so called qualified people in various publications.
Fact if I pitch up in my caravan on public land I would get told to move and on refusing get prosecuted. If I wanted to claim some imunity i would have to prove entitlement, people are asking how that could be proven as the country issuing these folk with passports does not recogonise anything other than simply Irish, or so the newspapers tell us.
Fact if I let my unlicenced and under driving age son drive around on a public field I would be prosecuted.
Fact if I openly fly tip large amounts of rubbish I would be pursued by the law and get prosecuted.
Fact if me and my mates take bolt croppers to a locked gate or tear down a fence in view of police officers We would be up before the magistrate.
Fact if I park even a few inches over the markings in a public car park, let alone cook sell and sleep the night and fail to pay the appropriate fee, I am going to be the receipient of a few stiff fines.

So how exactly is people asking these questions being barrack room lawyers. Folks are asking that this unch of wandering riff raff be treated fairly and even handedly just like everyone else.
You have to remember that Baysider is an expert on absolutely everything and the rest of us are just ignorant peasants. He/she is also arrogant and ill-mannered to answer a genuine question in such a condescending manner.
Nope I don't know everything at all but I am prepared to think about the issue beyond the knee jerk, repetitive reactions seen every single time the subject comes up on here. I also answered your completely impractical and provocative suggestion with legal clarity and from a practical point of view. I've every confidence you made a suggestion based on seeing a trailer for a fictional drama about a murder not someone (unknown) pulling out a gate post. Do you seriously think that's a useful use of our taxes and the courts time, albeit about 10 minutes to decide there's no case to answer? Is that likely to satisfy any test of public interest? As for the name calling from you, well that cuts both ways doesn't it 'carolyn'...
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rotcoddam[/bold] wrote: Nobody is being a bar room lawyer on here. People are stating impressions they have been given by so called qualified people in various publications. Fact if I pitch up in my caravan on public land I would get told to move and on refusing get prosecuted. If I wanted to claim some imunity i would have to prove entitlement, people are asking how that could be proven as the country issuing these folk with passports does not recogonise anything other than simply Irish, or so the newspapers tell us. Fact if I let my unlicenced and under driving age son drive around on a public field I would be prosecuted. Fact if I openly fly tip large amounts of rubbish I would be pursued by the law and get prosecuted. Fact if me and my mates take bolt croppers to a locked gate or tear down a fence in view of police officers We would be up before the magistrate. Fact if I park even a few inches over the markings in a public car park, let alone cook sell and sleep the night and fail to pay the appropriate fee, I am going to be the receipient of a few stiff fines. So how exactly is people asking these questions being barrack room lawyers. Folks are asking that this unch of wandering riff raff be treated fairly and even handedly just like everyone else.[/p][/quote]You have to remember that Baysider is an expert on absolutely everything and the rest of us are just ignorant peasants. He/she is also arrogant and ill-mannered to answer a genuine question in such a condescending manner.[/p][/quote]Nope I don't know everything at all but I am prepared to think about the issue beyond the knee jerk, repetitive reactions seen every single time the subject comes up on here. I also answered your completely impractical and provocative suggestion with legal clarity and from a practical point of view. I've every confidence you made a suggestion based on seeing a trailer for a fictional drama about a murder not someone (unknown) pulling out a gate post. Do you seriously think that's a useful use of our taxes and the courts time, albeit about 10 minutes to decide there's no case to answer? Is that likely to satisfy any test of public interest? As for the name calling from you, well that cuts both ways doesn't it 'carolyn'... Baysider
  • Score: -6

9:05am Sat 5 Jul 14

spooki says...

So any of us could park our vehicles on that land and get to stay there? Isn't it funny how they always seem to turn up on a Friday when they know the council offices are closed....
So any of us could park our vehicles on that land and get to stay there? Isn't it funny how they always seem to turn up on a Friday when they know the council offices are closed.... spooki
  • Score: 11

9:12am Sat 5 Jul 14

Baysider says...

rotcoddam wrote:
Nobody is being a bar room lawyer on here. People are stating impressions they have been given by so called qualified people in various publications.
Fact if I pitch up in my caravan on public land I would get told to move and on refusing get prosecuted. If I wanted to claim some imunity i would have to prove entitlement, people are asking how that could be proven as the country issuing these folk with passports does not recogonise anything other than simply Irish, or so the newspapers tell us.
Fact if I let my unlicenced and under driving age son drive around on a public field I would be prosecuted.
Fact if I openly fly tip large amounts of rubbish I would be pursued by the law and get prosecuted.
Fact if me and my mates take bolt croppers to a locked gate or tear down a fence in view of police officers We would be up before the magistrate.
Fact if I park even a few inches over the markings in a public car park, let alone cook sell and sleep the night and fail to pay the appropriate fee, I am going to be the receipient of a few stiff fines.

So how exactly is people asking these questions being barrack room lawyers. Folks are asking that this unch of wandering riff raff be treated fairly and even handedly just like everyone else.
Putting FACT in front of your opinions, half truths, rumours and myths does not make them any more valid sadly. For example there has NEVER been any report of travellers taking bolt cutters to gates in front of coppers that would be ridiculous and I 100% sure every police officer out there would very much welcome such an open and shut case, if you pardon the pun...
[quote][p][bold]rotcoddam[/bold] wrote: Nobody is being a bar room lawyer on here. People are stating impressions they have been given by so called qualified people in various publications. Fact if I pitch up in my caravan on public land I would get told to move and on refusing get prosecuted. If I wanted to claim some imunity i would have to prove entitlement, people are asking how that could be proven as the country issuing these folk with passports does not recogonise anything other than simply Irish, or so the newspapers tell us. Fact if I let my unlicenced and under driving age son drive around on a public field I would be prosecuted. Fact if I openly fly tip large amounts of rubbish I would be pursued by the law and get prosecuted. Fact if me and my mates take bolt croppers to a locked gate or tear down a fence in view of police officers We would be up before the magistrate. Fact if I park even a few inches over the markings in a public car park, let alone cook sell and sleep the night and fail to pay the appropriate fee, I am going to be the receipient of a few stiff fines. So how exactly is people asking these questions being barrack room lawyers. Folks are asking that this unch of wandering riff raff be treated fairly and even handedly just like everyone else.[/p][/quote]Putting FACT in front of your opinions, half truths, rumours and myths does not make them any more valid sadly. For example there has NEVER been any report of travellers taking bolt cutters to gates in front of coppers that would be ridiculous and I 100% sure every police officer out there would very much welcome such an open and shut case, if you pardon the pun... Baysider
  • Score: -1

9:20am Sat 5 Jul 14

Baysider says...

Peroni wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
The authorities always say they can't prosecute when they break into an area because they don't know who has actually done it and they can't prosecute the innocent.

But, when it suits, a prosecution can be brought for "joint enterprise", i.e. all those involved, whether or not they actually did anything. So why can't they use "joint enterprise" when a group sets up camp after one of them has had to break in?

I genuinely want to know.
I would as well, as the police have been present on many occasions of actually breaking locks ect ,so if they are present when some one commits a crime of criminal damage ,why are they not dealt with.
Not true. Turning up after the event when presented with 20 blokes and lots more juveniles, any one of who might have caused criminal damage on that day or as sometimes happens in advance of the main group is the reality of the situation. I have already tried to offer up an explanation as to why a joint enterprise case would be unlikely to work but I expect that this doesn't fit in with what you want to work does it?
[quote][p][bold]Peroni[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: The authorities always say they can't prosecute when they break into an area because they don't know who has actually done it and they can't prosecute the innocent. But, when it suits, a prosecution can be brought for "joint enterprise", i.e. all those involved, whether or not they actually did anything. So why can't they use "joint enterprise" when a group sets up camp after one of them has had to break in? I genuinely want to know.[/p][/quote]I would as well, as the police have been present on many occasions of actually breaking locks ect ,so if they are present when some one commits a crime of criminal damage ,why are they not dealt with.[/p][/quote]Not true. Turning up after the event when presented with 20 blokes and lots more juveniles, any one of who might have caused criminal damage on that day or as sometimes happens in advance of the main group is the reality of the situation. I have already tried to offer up an explanation as to why a joint enterprise case would be unlikely to work but I expect that this doesn't fit in with what you want to work does it? Baysider
  • Score: -3

9:26am Sat 5 Jul 14

Carolyn43 says...

Baysider wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
rotcoddam wrote:
Nobody is being a bar room lawyer on here. People are stating impressions they have been given by so called qualified people in various publications.
Fact if I pitch up in my caravan on public land I would get told to move and on refusing get prosecuted. If I wanted to claim some imunity i would have to prove entitlement, people are asking how that could be proven as the country issuing these folk with passports does not recogonise anything other than simply Irish, or so the newspapers tell us.
Fact if I let my unlicenced and under driving age son drive around on a public field I would be prosecuted.
Fact if I openly fly tip large amounts of rubbish I would be pursued by the law and get prosecuted.
Fact if me and my mates take bolt croppers to a locked gate or tear down a fence in view of police officers We would be up before the magistrate.
Fact if I park even a few inches over the markings in a public car park, let alone cook sell and sleep the night and fail to pay the appropriate fee, I am going to be the receipient of a few stiff fines.

So how exactly is people asking these questions being barrack room lawyers. Folks are asking that this unch of wandering riff raff be treated fairly and even handedly just like everyone else.
You have to remember that Baysider is an expert on absolutely everything and the rest of us are just ignorant peasants. He/she is also arrogant and ill-mannered to answer a genuine question in such a condescending manner.
Nope I don't know everything at all but I am prepared to think about the issue beyond the knee jerk, repetitive reactions seen every single time the subject comes up on here. I also answered your completely impractical and provocative suggestion with legal clarity and from a practical point of view. I've every confidence you made a suggestion based on seeing a trailer for a fictional drama about a murder not someone (unknown) pulling out a gate post. Do you seriously think that's a useful use of our taxes and the courts time, albeit about 10 minutes to decide there's no case to answer? Is that likely to satisfy any test of public interest? As for the name calling from you, well that cuts both ways doesn't it 'carolyn'...
As I said, I ask a genuine question and get an arrogant, rude, know-it-all answer. The fact that you state "I also answered your completely impractical and provocative suggestion with LEGAL clarity", gives the impression you are a lawyer.

And for your information, I have not seen "joint enterprise" on a fictional drama, but read it some time recently about a genuine case in a UK court. Not being a lawyer myself, I asked a genuine question expecting a civil and informed answer.

At least I use my real first name and don't hide behind a screen name.
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rotcoddam[/bold] wrote: Nobody is being a bar room lawyer on here. People are stating impressions they have been given by so called qualified people in various publications. Fact if I pitch up in my caravan on public land I would get told to move and on refusing get prosecuted. If I wanted to claim some imunity i would have to prove entitlement, people are asking how that could be proven as the country issuing these folk with passports does not recogonise anything other than simply Irish, or so the newspapers tell us. Fact if I let my unlicenced and under driving age son drive around on a public field I would be prosecuted. Fact if I openly fly tip large amounts of rubbish I would be pursued by the law and get prosecuted. Fact if me and my mates take bolt croppers to a locked gate or tear down a fence in view of police officers We would be up before the magistrate. Fact if I park even a few inches over the markings in a public car park, let alone cook sell and sleep the night and fail to pay the appropriate fee, I am going to be the receipient of a few stiff fines. So how exactly is people asking these questions being barrack room lawyers. Folks are asking that this unch of wandering riff raff be treated fairly and even handedly just like everyone else.[/p][/quote]You have to remember that Baysider is an expert on absolutely everything and the rest of us are just ignorant peasants. He/she is also arrogant and ill-mannered to answer a genuine question in such a condescending manner.[/p][/quote]Nope I don't know everything at all but I am prepared to think about the issue beyond the knee jerk, repetitive reactions seen every single time the subject comes up on here. I also answered your completely impractical and provocative suggestion with legal clarity and from a practical point of view. I've every confidence you made a suggestion based on seeing a trailer for a fictional drama about a murder not someone (unknown) pulling out a gate post. Do you seriously think that's a useful use of our taxes and the courts time, albeit about 10 minutes to decide there's no case to answer? Is that likely to satisfy any test of public interest? As for the name calling from you, well that cuts both ways doesn't it 'carolyn'...[/p][/quote]As I said, I ask a genuine question and get an arrogant, rude, know-it-all answer. The fact that you state "I also answered your completely impractical and provocative suggestion with LEGAL clarity", gives the impression you are a lawyer. And for your information, I have not seen "joint enterprise" on a fictional drama, but read it some time recently about a genuine case in a UK court. Not being a lawyer myself, I asked a genuine question expecting a civil and informed answer. At least I use my real first name and don't hide behind a screen name. Carolyn43
  • Score: 3

10:01am Sat 5 Jul 14

Carolyn43 says...

For Baysider's information, I've just been talking to a barrister friend who says that some believe that "joint enterprise" or "collective responsibility", where where more than one person can share liability and punishment for the actions of another person, is considered by some to be just and by others to be an abuse of human rights. Because of that in England and Wales it is usually only considered for serious crimes such as murder.

So I have a civil answer to my question.
For Baysider's information, I've just been talking to a barrister friend who says that some believe that "joint enterprise" or "collective responsibility", where where more than one person can share liability and punishment for the actions of another person, is considered by some to be just and by others to be an abuse of human rights. Because of that in England and Wales it is usually only considered for serious crimes such as murder. So I have a civil answer to my question. Carolyn43
  • Score: 4

10:07am Sat 5 Jul 14

Baysider says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
Baysider wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
rotcoddam wrote:
Nobody is being a bar room lawyer on here. People are stating impressions they have been given by so called qualified people in various publications.
Fact if I pitch up in my caravan on public land I would get told to move and on refusing get prosecuted. If I wanted to claim some imunity i would have to prove entitlement, people are asking how that could be proven as the country issuing these folk with passports does not recogonise anything other than simply Irish, or so the newspapers tell us.
Fact if I let my unlicenced and under driving age son drive around on a public field I would be prosecuted.
Fact if I openly fly tip large amounts of rubbish I would be pursued by the law and get prosecuted.
Fact if me and my mates take bolt croppers to a locked gate or tear down a fence in view of police officers We would be up before the magistrate.
Fact if I park even a few inches over the markings in a public car park, let alone cook sell and sleep the night and fail to pay the appropriate fee, I am going to be the receipient of a few stiff fines.

So how exactly is people asking these questions being barrack room lawyers. Folks are asking that this unch of wandering riff raff be treated fairly and even handedly just like everyone else.
You have to remember that Baysider is an expert on absolutely everything and the rest of us are just ignorant peasants. He/she is also arrogant and ill-mannered to answer a genuine question in such a condescending manner.
Nope I don't know everything at all but I am prepared to think about the issue beyond the knee jerk, repetitive reactions seen every single time the subject comes up on here. I also answered your completely impractical and provocative suggestion with legal clarity and from a practical point of view. I've every confidence you made a suggestion based on seeing a trailer for a fictional drama about a murder not someone (unknown) pulling out a gate post. Do you seriously think that's a useful use of our taxes and the courts time, albeit about 10 minutes to decide there's no case to answer? Is that likely to satisfy any test of public interest? As for the name calling from you, well that cuts both ways doesn't it 'carolyn'...
As I said, I ask a genuine question and get an arrogant, rude, know-it-all answer. The fact that you state "I also answered your completely impractical and provocative suggestion with LEGAL clarity", gives the impression you are a lawyer.

And for your information, I have not seen "joint enterprise" on a fictional drama, but read it some time recently about a genuine case in a UK court. Not being a lawyer myself, I asked a genuine question expecting a civil and informed answer.

At least I use my real first name and don't hide behind a screen name.
Sorry to come across as rude or arrogant but when you and others dish it out to myself with such frequency you should expect to get it back shouldn't you? Or is that a one way street? FWIW you won't find a single post from myself defending the travellers lifestyle but equally we are where we are and have to deal with the practicalities and reality of the situation. It's unpalatable to most of us but that means taking a view on how councils and the police spend their limited resources pursuing travellers when there is very little chance of a successful outcome. The fact you may or may not use your real first name is neither here or there either.
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rotcoddam[/bold] wrote: Nobody is being a bar room lawyer on here. People are stating impressions they have been given by so called qualified people in various publications. Fact if I pitch up in my caravan on public land I would get told to move and on refusing get prosecuted. If I wanted to claim some imunity i would have to prove entitlement, people are asking how that could be proven as the country issuing these folk with passports does not recogonise anything other than simply Irish, or so the newspapers tell us. Fact if I let my unlicenced and under driving age son drive around on a public field I would be prosecuted. Fact if I openly fly tip large amounts of rubbish I would be pursued by the law and get prosecuted. Fact if me and my mates take bolt croppers to a locked gate or tear down a fence in view of police officers We would be up before the magistrate. Fact if I park even a few inches over the markings in a public car park, let alone cook sell and sleep the night and fail to pay the appropriate fee, I am going to be the receipient of a few stiff fines. So how exactly is people asking these questions being barrack room lawyers. Folks are asking that this unch of wandering riff raff be treated fairly and even handedly just like everyone else.[/p][/quote]You have to remember that Baysider is an expert on absolutely everything and the rest of us are just ignorant peasants. He/she is also arrogant and ill-mannered to answer a genuine question in such a condescending manner.[/p][/quote]Nope I don't know everything at all but I am prepared to think about the issue beyond the knee jerk, repetitive reactions seen every single time the subject comes up on here. I also answered your completely impractical and provocative suggestion with legal clarity and from a practical point of view. I've every confidence you made a suggestion based on seeing a trailer for a fictional drama about a murder not someone (unknown) pulling out a gate post. Do you seriously think that's a useful use of our taxes and the courts time, albeit about 10 minutes to decide there's no case to answer? Is that likely to satisfy any test of public interest? As for the name calling from you, well that cuts both ways doesn't it 'carolyn'...[/p][/quote]As I said, I ask a genuine question and get an arrogant, rude, know-it-all answer. The fact that you state "I also answered your completely impractical and provocative suggestion with LEGAL clarity", gives the impression you are a lawyer. And for your information, I have not seen "joint enterprise" on a fictional drama, but read it some time recently about a genuine case in a UK court. Not being a lawyer myself, I asked a genuine question expecting a civil and informed answer. At least I use my real first name and don't hide behind a screen name.[/p][/quote]Sorry to come across as rude or arrogant but when you and others dish it out to myself with such frequency you should expect to get it back shouldn't you? Or is that a one way street? FWIW you won't find a single post from myself defending the travellers lifestyle but equally we are where we are and have to deal with the practicalities and reality of the situation. It's unpalatable to most of us but that means taking a view on how councils and the police spend their limited resources pursuing travellers when there is very little chance of a successful outcome. The fact you may or may not use your real first name is neither here or there either. Baysider
  • Score: -2

10:42am Sat 5 Jul 14

Carolyn43 says...

Then why did you put 'carolyn'.... in single quotes if it wasn't intended to have a meaning?

As for dishing it out, as far as I'm concerned when discussions on a particular article is finished with it's finished and done with, so when I ask a genuine question in a new article I expect it to be answered civilly and not rudely. It's a new page.
Then why did you put 'carolyn'.... in single quotes if it wasn't intended to have a meaning? As for dishing it out, as far as I'm concerned when discussions on a particular article is finished with it's finished and done with, so when I ask a genuine question in a new article I expect it to be answered civilly and not rudely. It's a new page. Carolyn43
  • Score: 2

10:43am Sat 5 Jul 14

Baysider says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
For Baysider's information, I've just been talking to a barrister friend who says that some believe that "joint enterprise" or "collective responsibility", where where more than one person can share liability and punishment for the actions of another person, is considered by some to be just and by others to be an abuse of human rights. Because of that in England and Wales it is usually only considered for serious crimes such as murder.

So I have a civil answer to my question.
Alternatively you got the same answer ie the burden of proof is such that it is only ever considered for the most serious of cases where sufficient evidence exists. So my "know it all" response was, in fact, correct yes?
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: For Baysider's information, I've just been talking to a barrister friend who says that some believe that "joint enterprise" or "collective responsibility", where where more than one person can share liability and punishment for the actions of another person, is considered by some to be just and by others to be an abuse of human rights. Because of that in England and Wales it is usually only considered for serious crimes such as murder. So I have a civil answer to my question.[/p][/quote]Alternatively you got the same answer ie the burden of proof is such that it is only ever considered for the most serious of cases where sufficient evidence exists. So my "know it all" response was, in fact, correct yes? Baysider
  • Score: -4

10:49am Sat 5 Jul 14

Baysider says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
Then why did you put 'carolyn'.... in single quotes if it wasn't intended to have a meaning?

As for dishing it out, as far as I'm concerned when discussions on a particular article is finished with it's finished and done with, so when I ask a genuine question in a new article I expect it to be answered civilly and not rudely. It's a new page.
Fair enough. In that case then I retract my comments suggesting you were barrack room lawyering. The rest of my answer remains perfectly civil.
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: Then why did you put 'carolyn'.... in single quotes if it wasn't intended to have a meaning? As for dishing it out, as far as I'm concerned when discussions on a particular article is finished with it's finished and done with, so when I ask a genuine question in a new article I expect it to be answered civilly and not rudely. It's a new page.[/p][/quote]Fair enough. In that case then I retract my comments suggesting you were barrack room lawyering. The rest of my answer remains perfectly civil. Baysider
  • Score: 1

10:58am Sat 5 Jul 14

kalebmoledirt says...

Baysider wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
Then why did you put 'carolyn'.... in single quotes if it wasn't intended to have a meaning?

As for dishing it out, as far as I'm concerned when discussions on a particular article is finished with it's finished and done with, so when I ask a genuine question in a new article I expect it to be answered civilly and not rudely. It's a new page.
Fair enough. In that case then I retract my comments suggesting you were barrack room lawyering. The rest of my answer remains perfectly civil.
As this article been high jacked .by a couple that know best ?
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: Then why did you put 'carolyn'.... in single quotes if it wasn't intended to have a meaning? As for dishing it out, as far as I'm concerned when discussions on a particular article is finished with it's finished and done with, so when I ask a genuine question in a new article I expect it to be answered civilly and not rudely. It's a new page.[/p][/quote]Fair enough. In that case then I retract my comments suggesting you were barrack room lawyering. The rest of my answer remains perfectly civil.[/p][/quote]As this article been high jacked .by a couple that know best ? kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 4

12:28pm Sat 5 Jul 14

stevobath says...

Baysider wrote:
I see the £10,000's spent on the "lock down" policy is paying off again then.
Paying off for someone!
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: I see the £10,000's spent on the "lock down" policy is paying off again then.[/p][/quote]Paying off for someone! stevobath
  • Score: 2

4:04pm Sat 5 Jul 14

neilf2006 says...

Quite extraordinary bickering ???
Quite extraordinary bickering ??? neilf2006
  • Score: -4

5:50pm Sat 5 Jul 14

chris100 says...

Dump fresh cow muck near them and they will soon move !!!!!!!
Dump fresh cow muck near them and they will soon move !!!!!!! chris100
  • Score: 4

9:34pm Sat 5 Jul 14

Clemenceu says...

My wife and I are in our late seventies so if we sell our house buy a mobile home can we then park anywhere-and will council officers and social services rush round to access our needs? Sounds like the way to go to me!
My wife and I are in our late seventies so if we sell our house buy a mobile home can we then park anywhere-and will council officers and social services rush round to access our needs? Sounds like the way to go to me! Clemenceu
  • Score: 7

1:28am Sun 6 Jul 14

Skyrah says...

chris100 wrote:
Dump fresh cow muck near them and they will soon move !!!!!!!
Haha! Sadly I know of a farmer just 10 or so miles up the A10 past Hatfield who did something similar many years ago. The next day the 'travellers' were indeed gone - along with a prized and expensive breeding bull from the field next to where they had stopped! The farmer found the carcass underneath huge piles of rubbish and human waste left behind.
[quote][p][bold]chris100[/bold] wrote: Dump fresh cow muck near them and they will soon move !!!!!!![/p][/quote]Haha! Sadly I know of a farmer just 10 or so miles up the A10 past Hatfield who did something similar many years ago. The next day the 'travellers' were indeed gone - along with a prized and expensive breeding bull from the field next to where they had stopped! The farmer found the carcass underneath huge piles of rubbish and human waste left behind. Skyrah
  • Score: 2

1:33am Sun 6 Jul 14

RM says...

Peroni wrote:
norfy39 wrote:
Which bright spark took the railings down and gate to make it easier for them to access the area. They were erected after the last invasion and appeared to be doing the job, a few months after they have been removed look what's happened!!
Seemed to be working ?
At Branksome recreation ground ,they just pulled off the metal low level rails ,and the police told the public to get out of the way of the 'travellers' when they were trying to stop them entering and leaving .
Police need to grow some !!!
The police at Branksome also told residents that once one caravan had entered, the residents or police had no right to stop further caravans from entering. Since Bournemouth Council are doing this very thing does anyone know if what the police said is true or was it just them failing yet again to do their job properly?
[quote][p][bold]Peroni[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]norfy39[/bold] wrote: Which bright spark took the railings down and gate to make it easier for them to access the area. They were erected after the last invasion and appeared to be doing the job, a few months after they have been removed look what's happened!![/p][/quote]Seemed to be working ? At Branksome recreation ground ,they just pulled off the metal low level rails ,and the police told the public to get out of the way of the 'travellers' when they were trying to stop them entering and leaving . Police need to grow some !!![/p][/quote]The police at Branksome also told residents that once one caravan had entered, the residents or police had no right to stop further caravans from entering. Since Bournemouth Council are doing this very thing does anyone know if what the police said is true or was it just them failing yet again to do their job properly? RM
  • Score: 5
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

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