Creekmoor travellers “to stay on site until Steam Fair”

Traveller site at Creekmoor park-and-ride

Shaun Robson

Judy Butt

First published in News by

TRAVELLERS camped at Creekmoor’s park and ride site will probably be allowed to stay there until the start of the Dorset Steam Fair, local residents and ward councillors believe.

Nineteen caravans and associated vehicles remain on-site, where Borough of Poole has provided skips and toilets.

Shaun Robson, the borough’s head of environment and consumer protection, says officers continue to “manage and monitor” the situation but confirmed no legal action is being pursued to evict the travellers.

While the council does not specifically say the Creekmoor encampment will remain until the end of the month - when the Dorset Steam Fair gets underway at Tarrant Hinton - it did post the following on its official website yesterday: “Previous evictions have not however prompted the travellers to leave Poole, and further evictions are likely to result in more dispersal across the borough.

“It is likely they are heading for the Dorset Steam Fair. Once possession has been regained we will repair the damage to the boundary and re-secure the site.”

Creekmoor ward councillor John Rampton told the Daily Echo residents had interpreted this as Borough of Poole allowing the unauthorised encampment to remain for the next fortnight.

He said: “From the residents’ point of view it does seem as though Poole council is intent on using the park and ride as a traveller site, which is a very insensitive thing to have done because Creekmoor residents have had to go through hell already this year with the temporary stopping place debacle.

“I can only suspect that the borough is happy to allow the travellers to remain until the start of the steam fair.”

Fellow Creekmoor councillor Judy Butt, who has called for Secretary of State Eric Pickles to “pull his finger out and sort out the traveller issue once and for all”, concurs with Cllr Rampton. She said: “Residents clearly believe the council has agreed to leave the travellers there until the steam fair.”

Meanwhile Cllr Les Burden, who also represents the Creekmoor ward, agreed. He added: “As a retired international referee I think someone needs to be shown the red card over this.”

Bournemouth Echo:

'Consider the community’

POOLE’S environmental and consumer protection head Shaun Robson explained: “In every case such as this we have to consider the impact that the encampment is having on the local community.

“This is a closed site, so the travellers are not hindering any planned public events or preventing the use of parking or recreational space.

“Should an application for eviction be made now, it is likely to result in further incursions onto open spaces in Poole, as the group has made it clear that they intend to stay in the area.

“However, should the current situation change and evidence of significant detriment to the local community be forthcoming then this would be immediately reviewed and acted upon.”

Four of the caravans and a motor home that had been parked-up at Sterte Esplanade, Poole, pictured above, left the site yesterday.

One caravan remained at the site as the Daily Echo went to press. A skip and a toilet, supplied by Borough of Poole, remain.

Comments (81)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:19am Thu 14 Aug 14

MotorbikeSam says...

councillor John Rampton said as Borough of Poole is allowing the unauthorised encampment to remain for the next fortnight which means it is now a authorised site " welcome to creekmoor" !!
councillor John Rampton said as Borough of Poole is allowing the unauthorised encampment to remain for the next fortnight which means it is now a authorised site " welcome to creekmoor" !! MotorbikeSam
  • Score: 26

11:20am Thu 14 Aug 14

TheDistrict says...

What assurance has Poole Council and Shaun Robson got that the illegal campers at Creekmoor will move on nearer to the start of the Steam Fair. If the truth is known, probably none. All they have is a threat from the illegal campers that they will move elsewhere, no doubt more of a blackmail threat.

From the outset, this Council and its "Officers" have done nothing, other than to support the illegal travellers who persist in making a mockery of the councils of Poole and Bournemouth. Because they, the illegal campers know that hide under the canopy of the ridiculous ruling of the English Judge, Race Relations and Ethnic Equality, when in reality they are not entitled to do so.

I have met some cowards in my life, but none as great as the Councils of our two towns. God forbid. Do you understand the term;

IT'S TIME TO ACT, AND ACT NOW. GET RID OF THEM.
What assurance has Poole Council and Shaun Robson got that the illegal campers at Creekmoor will move on nearer to the start of the Steam Fair. If the truth is known, probably none. All they have is a threat from the illegal campers that they will move elsewhere, no doubt more of a blackmail threat. From the outset, this Council and its "Officers" have done nothing, other than to support the illegal travellers who persist in making a mockery of the councils of Poole and Bournemouth. Because they, the illegal campers know that hide under the canopy of the ridiculous ruling of the English Judge, Race Relations and Ethnic Equality, when in reality they are not entitled to do so. I have met some cowards in my life, but none as great as the Councils of our two towns. God forbid. Do you understand the term; IT'S TIME TO ACT, AND ACT NOW. GET RID OF THEM. TheDistrict
  • Score: 44

11:23am Thu 14 Aug 14

TheDistrict says...

What does the sign say on the gate;

NO UNAUTHORISED ENTRY

Yet, they broke in forcing an unauthorised entry. Poole Council, you cannot put a sign in place saying one thing, then allowing it to be broken. Think of the chaos if we all broke the law by disobeying signs. Here is one for the travellers: V
What does the sign say on the gate; NO UNAUTHORISED ENTRY Yet, they broke in forcing an unauthorised entry. Poole Council, you cannot put a sign in place saying one thing, then allowing it to be broken. Think of the chaos if we all broke the law by disobeying signs. Here is one for the travellers: V TheDistrict
  • Score: 47

11:30am Thu 14 Aug 14

apm1954 says...

Elections 2015.
Elections 2015. apm1954
  • Score: 32

11:30am Thu 14 Aug 14

muscliffman says...

So this 'policy' will make the lives of the Councillors, Council Officers and the Police a lot easier - and of course in all matter 'traveller' in Poole this always seems to be the priority.
So this 'policy' will make the lives of the Councillors, Council Officers and the Police a lot easier - and of course in all matter 'traveller' in Poole this always seems to be the priority. muscliffman
  • Score: 28

11:42am Thu 14 Aug 14

60plus says...

So the travellers have won again why because the council and police have no balls,we must be the laughing stock of the traveller community.lets go to Poole we can camp for free and make the council and police look right tossers.
So the travellers have won again why because the council and police have no balls,we must be the laughing stock of the traveller community.lets go to Poole we can camp for free and make the council and police look right tossers. 60plus
  • Score: 38

11:43am Thu 14 Aug 14

its not that bad says...

I feel not making a transit site this year was a big mis take how long do we need to go round in circles id like to know how much its cost poole this year in court cost and clean ups and over the past 5 years because I bet the same as making a transit site we have got loads of land were there are no houses the park and ride site is perfect but too near houses being all in one place has worked not cost any more money so you can see why poole have left them there . poole now need to find a site like the park and ride and let them have it at least we would has somewhere we could move them too if there park up in and around poole its for 2/3 months a year this would in turn save money in court action and this running cat and mouse game each year poole have got land away from all house instead they pick sites that could be used right next to are house poole the count down has already begun for next year lets see if they decide to pull there fingers out a put a transit in a place that would make most of us happy we don't like the travers here but they clearly do one thing is for sure we need more than 16 space we need double that to make it work I don't agree that people should get a free holiday but how can we stop poole just burning are money with the same problems year after year its worth a try
I feel not making a transit site this year was a big mis take how long do we need to go round in circles id like to know how much its cost poole this year in court cost and clean ups and over the past 5 years because I bet the same as making a transit site we have got loads of land were there are no houses the park and ride site is perfect but too near houses being all in one place has worked not cost any more money so you can see why poole have left them there . poole now need to find a site like the park and ride and let them have it at least we would has somewhere we could move them too if there park up in and around poole its for 2/3 months a year this would in turn save money in court action and this running cat and mouse game each year poole have got land away from all house instead they pick sites that could be used right next to are house poole the count down has already begun for next year lets see if they decide to pull there fingers out a put a transit in a place that would make most of us happy we don't like the travers here but they clearly do one thing is for sure we need more than 16 space we need double that to make it work I don't agree that people should get a free holiday but how can we stop poole just burning are money with the same problems year after year its worth a try its not that bad
  • Score: -36

12:10pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Franks Tank says...

It'd be a shame if they got blocked in just before the steam fair and couldn't go.
It'd be a shame if they got blocked in just before the steam fair and couldn't go. Franks Tank
  • Score: 49

1:25pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Letcommonsenseprevail says...

Disgusting. Everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves - Police, local politicians, council workers, MP's. You're all a feckless disgrace. I can't believe you all have the nerve to draw a salary. Letting a bunch of travellers make you look like a right bunch of dolts. Well done guys.
Disgusting. Everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves - Police, local politicians, council workers, MP's. You're all a feckless disgrace. I can't believe you all have the nerve to draw a salary. Letting a bunch of travellers make you look like a right bunch of dolts. Well done guys. Letcommonsenseprevail
  • Score: 36

1:44pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Bob49 says...

Travellers are supposedly protected by a ruling made in an English court by an English judge. That ruling set out how they were defined as a seperate ethnic group.

Yet NEVER ONCE have I read of any local council explaining what checks are made to determine that these folk fall within that definition.

In that light I urge all locals to challenge their ward councillors to tell them what checks are being made, when those checks are made and by whom. I think there would be an extremely large number of locals who would like some answers in regard to this matter.

So getting asking - by letter, email or phone - and make sure the Daily Echo reports any replies from the council

LETS USE THEIR LAW FOR US FOR ONCE
Travellers are supposedly protected by a ruling made in an English court by an English judge. That ruling set out how they were defined as a seperate ethnic group. Yet NEVER ONCE have I read of any local council explaining what checks are made to determine that these folk fall within that definition. In that light I urge all locals to challenge their ward councillors to tell them what checks are being made, when those checks are made and by whom. I think there would be an extremely large number of locals who would like some answers in regard to this matter. So getting asking - by letter, email or phone - and make sure the Daily Echo reports any replies from the council LETS USE THEIR LAW FOR US FOR ONCE Bob49
  • Score: 23

1:49pm Thu 14 Aug 14

TheDistrict says...

Do people really think that a purpose built campsite is the answer. Well you would be very wrong. There have been purpose built campsites in the past, like Manning Heath that have been completely wrecked and materials taken by the very people who it was built for. At the same time these people do not like authority, therefore if they feel they are being organised they will be off.

They have 2 options.
1. Choose a proper campsite as we do and pay their way.
2. Don't bother visiting until the start of the Steam Fair ( if that's their reason for being here ).
Do people really think that a purpose built campsite is the answer. Well you would be very wrong. There have been purpose built campsites in the past, like Manning Heath that have been completely wrecked and materials taken by the very people who it was built for. At the same time these people do not like authority, therefore if they feel they are being organised they will be off. They have 2 options. 1. Choose a proper campsite as we do and pay their way. 2. Don't bother visiting until the start of the Steam Fair ( if that's their reason for being here ). TheDistrict
  • Score: 19

2:31pm Thu 14 Aug 14

OKANAGAN 1 says...

And their next excuse will be !!!! Wait until they go home at Christmastime?
And their next excuse will be !!!! Wait until they go home at Christmastime? OKANAGAN 1
  • Score: 8

3:13pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Marty Caine says...

Does this mean if we all park caravans at the Co-Op car park in Jubilee Road the council will put some toilets back there?
Does this mean if we all park caravans at the Co-Op car park in Jubilee Road the council will put some toilets back there? Marty Caine
  • Score: 15

3:14pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Jack loveme says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
councillor John Rampton said as Borough of Poole is allowing the unauthorised encampment to remain for the next fortnight which means it is now a authorised site " welcome to creekmoor" !!
I hope people remember the travelers farce next time they vote
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: councillor John Rampton said as Borough of Poole is allowing the unauthorised encampment to remain for the next fortnight which means it is now a authorised site " welcome to creekmoor" !![/p][/quote]I hope people remember the travelers farce next time they vote Jack loveme
  • Score: 10

3:43pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Wackerone says...

apm1954 wrote:
Elections 2015.
What about elections 2015? Can I assume that you're referring to local council elections. If you are, you'll probably see little or no change as 90% of wards are happy with their cllr's. Only in Creekmoor might you see change, but then again the problems are not the fault of those cllr's and their electorate might recognise that and reelect them.
[quote][p][bold]apm1954[/bold] wrote: Elections 2015.[/p][/quote]What about elections 2015? Can I assume that you're referring to local council elections. If you are, you'll probably see little or no change as 90% of wards are happy with their cllr's. Only in Creekmoor might you see change, but then again the problems are not the fault of those cllr's and their electorate might recognise that and reelect them. Wackerone
  • Score: -3

3:50pm Thu 14 Aug 14

DorsetFerret says...

Oh dear, it looks as though my post upset someone. It had only got 34 thumbs up when I last checked. Can the Echo please tell me what is wrong about arguing against direct action towards the travellers. Poole B. C on the other hand???
Oh dear, it looks as though my post upset someone. It had only got 34 thumbs up when I last checked. Can the Echo please tell me what is wrong about arguing against direct action towards the travellers. Poole B. C on the other hand??? DorsetFerret
  • Score: 7

3:56pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Wackerone says...

When these TSP's were first talked about being put in Creekmoor all the local residents were up in arms and really concerned for the travellers welfare. So much so, that they wrote in their hundreds, worried that the traveller children and adults were in danger because of the entrance on a main road. They were really worried about the travellers being subjected to obnoxious fumes etc. still in ground. It was all really quite heart warming, the feelings that they had for their fellow human beings! Then, what a let down, as we now see that it was all a lie, just one big front! They don't want them at all in Creekmoor, anywhere else bar Creekmoor. And there was me, going to put the whole of Creekmoor up for a humanitarian award.
When these TSP's were first talked about being put in Creekmoor all the local residents were up in arms and really concerned for the travellers welfare. So much so, that they wrote in their hundreds, worried that the traveller children and adults were in danger because of the entrance on a main road. They were really worried about the travellers being subjected to obnoxious fumes etc. still in ground. It was all really quite heart warming, the feelings that they had for their fellow human beings! Then, what a let down, as we now see that it was all a lie, just one big front! They don't want them at all in Creekmoor, anywhere else bar Creekmoor. And there was me, going to put the whole of Creekmoor up for a humanitarian award. Wackerone
  • Score: -4

3:58pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Marty Caine says...

Wackerone wrote:
apm1954 wrote:
Elections 2015.
What about elections 2015? Can I assume that you're referring to local council elections. If you are, you'll probably see little or no change as 90% of wards are happy with their cllr's. Only in Creekmoor might you see change, but then again the problems are not the fault of those cllr's and their electorate might recognise that and reelect them.
From your comment I can only presume that you are one of those councilors that has very little contact with the voting public
[quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]apm1954[/bold] wrote: Elections 2015.[/p][/quote]What about elections 2015? Can I assume that you're referring to local council elections. If you are, you'll probably see little or no change as 90% of wards are happy with their cllr's. Only in Creekmoor might you see change, but then again the problems are not the fault of those cllr's and their electorate might recognise that and reelect them.[/p][/quote]From your comment I can only presume that you are one of those councilors that has very little contact with the voting public Marty Caine
  • Score: 6

4:00pm Thu 14 Aug 14

DorsetFerret says...

Wackerone wrote:
apm1954 wrote:
Elections 2015.
What about elections 2015? Can I assume that you're referring to local council elections. If you are, you'll probably see little or no change as 90% of wards are happy with their cllr's. Only in Creekmoor might you see change, but then again the problems are not the fault of those cllr's and their electorate might recognise that and reelect them.
If the electorate in those ward to the east of Poole want to re-elect devious, self centred councillors who are out only for themselves that's their problem. Hopefully the Creekmoor councillors will seriously consider switching to another party, in which case they will most certainly be re-elected.
[quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]apm1954[/bold] wrote: Elections 2015.[/p][/quote]What about elections 2015? Can I assume that you're referring to local council elections. If you are, you'll probably see little or no change as 90% of wards are happy with their cllr's. Only in Creekmoor might you see change, but then again the problems are not the fault of those cllr's and their electorate might recognise that and reelect them.[/p][/quote]If the electorate in those ward to the east of Poole want to re-elect devious, self centred councillors who are out only for themselves that's their problem. Hopefully the Creekmoor councillors will seriously consider switching to another party, in which case they will most certainly be re-elected. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 6

4:07pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Wackerone says...

DorsetFerret wrote:
Wackerone wrote:
apm1954 wrote:
Elections 2015.
What about elections 2015? Can I assume that you're referring to local council elections. If you are, you'll probably see little or no change as 90% of wards are happy with their cllr's. Only in Creekmoor might you see change, but then again the problems are not the fault of those cllr's and their electorate might recognise that and reelect them.
If the electorate in those ward to the east of Poole want to re-elect devious, self centred councillors who are out only for themselves that's their problem. Hopefully the Creekmoor councillors will seriously consider switching to another party, in which case they will most certainly be re-elected.
In that case, there will be little or no change, so I wish that people would stop making these crass statements about elections. I'm perfectly happy with May Haines, Neil Sorton and Peter Pawlowski as are friends with Phillip Eades in his neck of the woods.
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]apm1954[/bold] wrote: Elections 2015.[/p][/quote]What about elections 2015? Can I assume that you're referring to local council elections. If you are, you'll probably see little or no change as 90% of wards are happy with their cllr's. Only in Creekmoor might you see change, but then again the problems are not the fault of those cllr's and their electorate might recognise that and reelect them.[/p][/quote]If the electorate in those ward to the east of Poole want to re-elect devious, self centred councillors who are out only for themselves that's their problem. Hopefully the Creekmoor councillors will seriously consider switching to another party, in which case they will most certainly be re-elected.[/p][/quote]In that case, there will be little or no change, so I wish that people would stop making these crass statements about elections. I'm perfectly happy with May Haines, Neil Sorton and Peter Pawlowski as are friends with Phillip Eades in his neck of the woods. Wackerone
  • Score: -6

4:08pm Thu 14 Aug 14

DorsetFerret says...

Wackerone wrote:
When these TSP's were first talked about being put in Creekmoor all the local residents were up in arms and really concerned for the travellers welfare. So much so, that they wrote in their hundreds, worried that the traveller children and adults were in danger because of the entrance on a main road. They were really worried about the travellers being subjected to obnoxious fumes etc. still in ground. It was all really quite heart warming, the feelings that they had for their fellow human beings! Then, what a let down, as we now see that it was all a lie, just one big front! They don't want them at all in Creekmoor, anywhere else bar Creekmoor. And there was me, going to put the whole of Creekmoor up for a humanitarian award.
You're beginning to sound like a party political broadcast. I take pleasure in copying my response to you from another thread regarding the above. Please read it this time.

Initially Creekmoor residents were annoyed at the underhand way Mayor Eades and others pulled the TSP out of the hat and dumped it on Creekmoor. As has been mentioned in an earlier post, £250.000 was paid to a consultant who recommended amongst other prime choices Branksome as one of the most suitable location. Creekmoor had already been discounted and didn't feature in the report. Later it became apparent Creekmoor had other issues that made it unsuitable. At the time categorical assurances were made that the P&R was out of the question as per government restrictions on its use. Hence our annoyance now. Thus far I estimate more than £500.000 of tax payers money has been wasted on this matter. No wonder these travellers think we are all a joke.

At least we know who is asking for comments to be removed.
[quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: When these TSP's were first talked about being put in Creekmoor all the local residents were up in arms and really concerned for the travellers welfare. So much so, that they wrote in their hundreds, worried that the traveller children and adults were in danger because of the entrance on a main road. They were really worried about the travellers being subjected to obnoxious fumes etc. still in ground. It was all really quite heart warming, the feelings that they had for their fellow human beings! Then, what a let down, as we now see that it was all a lie, just one big front! They don't want them at all in Creekmoor, anywhere else bar Creekmoor. And there was me, going to put the whole of Creekmoor up for a humanitarian award.[/p][/quote]You're beginning to sound like a party political broadcast. I take pleasure in copying my response to you from another thread regarding the above. Please read it this time. Initially Creekmoor residents were annoyed at the underhand way Mayor Eades and others pulled the TSP out of the hat and dumped it on Creekmoor. As has been mentioned in an earlier post, £250.000 was paid to a consultant who recommended amongst other prime choices Branksome as one of the most suitable location. Creekmoor had already been discounted and didn't feature in the report. Later it became apparent Creekmoor had other issues that made it unsuitable. At the time categorical assurances were made that the P&R was out of the question as per government restrictions on its use. Hence our annoyance now. Thus far I estimate more than £500.000 of tax payers money has been wasted on this matter. No wonder these travellers think we are all a joke. At least we know who is asking for comments to be removed. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 6

4:17pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Wackerone says...

DorsetFerret wrote:
Wackerone wrote:
When these TSP's were first talked about being put in Creekmoor all the local residents were up in arms and really concerned for the travellers welfare. So much so, that they wrote in their hundreds, worried that the traveller children and adults were in danger because of the entrance on a main road. They were really worried about the travellers being subjected to obnoxious fumes etc. still in ground. It was all really quite heart warming, the feelings that they had for their fellow human beings! Then, what a let down, as we now see that it was all a lie, just one big front! They don't want them at all in Creekmoor, anywhere else bar Creekmoor. And there was me, going to put the whole of Creekmoor up for a humanitarian award.
You're beginning to sound like a party political broadcast. I take pleasure in copying my response to you from another thread regarding the above. Please read it this time.

Initially Creekmoor residents were annoyed at the underhand way Mayor Eades and others pulled the TSP out of the hat and dumped it on Creekmoor. As has been mentioned in an earlier post, £250.000 was paid to a consultant who recommended amongst other prime choices Branksome as one of the most suitable location. Creekmoor had already been discounted and didn't feature in the report. Later it became apparent Creekmoor had other issues that made it unsuitable. At the time categorical assurances were made that the P&R was out of the question as per government restrictions on its use. Hence our annoyance now. Thus far I estimate more than £500.000 of tax payers money has been wasted on this matter. No wonder these travellers think we are all a joke.

At least we know who is asking for comments to be removed.
Firstly, I'm a great believer in free speech and would never ask for anyone's comments to be removed any more that I would want mine removed. Secondly, you are the one who needs to read my post. Obviously you were all upset for the reasons you mention. Why didn't you state in simple words 'we don't want travellers on our patch' rather than the sob story's that you were 'solely concerned with their welfare' which we all knew was bull s**t. That is all I am saying.
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: When these TSP's were first talked about being put in Creekmoor all the local residents were up in arms and really concerned for the travellers welfare. So much so, that they wrote in their hundreds, worried that the traveller children and adults were in danger because of the entrance on a main road. They were really worried about the travellers being subjected to obnoxious fumes etc. still in ground. It was all really quite heart warming, the feelings that they had for their fellow human beings! Then, what a let down, as we now see that it was all a lie, just one big front! They don't want them at all in Creekmoor, anywhere else bar Creekmoor. And there was me, going to put the whole of Creekmoor up for a humanitarian award.[/p][/quote]You're beginning to sound like a party political broadcast. I take pleasure in copying my response to you from another thread regarding the above. Please read it this time. Initially Creekmoor residents were annoyed at the underhand way Mayor Eades and others pulled the TSP out of the hat and dumped it on Creekmoor. As has been mentioned in an earlier post, £250.000 was paid to a consultant who recommended amongst other prime choices Branksome as one of the most suitable location. Creekmoor had already been discounted and didn't feature in the report. Later it became apparent Creekmoor had other issues that made it unsuitable. At the time categorical assurances were made that the P&R was out of the question as per government restrictions on its use. Hence our annoyance now. Thus far I estimate more than £500.000 of tax payers money has been wasted on this matter. No wonder these travellers think we are all a joke. At least we know who is asking for comments to be removed.[/p][/quote]Firstly, I'm a great believer in free speech and would never ask for anyone's comments to be removed any more that I would want mine removed. Secondly, you are the one who needs to read my post. Obviously you were all upset for the reasons you mention. Why didn't you state in simple words 'we don't want travellers on our patch' rather than the sob story's that you were 'solely concerned with their welfare' which we all knew was bull s**t. That is all I am saying. Wackerone
  • Score: 4

4:28pm Thu 14 Aug 14

DorsetFerret says...

Wackerone wrote:
DorsetFerret wrote:
Wackerone wrote:
When these TSP's were first talked about being put in Creekmoor all the local residents were up in arms and really concerned for the travellers welfare. So much so, that they wrote in their hundreds, worried that the traveller children and adults were in danger because of the entrance on a main road. They were really worried about the travellers being subjected to obnoxious fumes etc. still in ground. It was all really quite heart warming, the feelings that they had for their fellow human beings! Then, what a let down, as we now see that it was all a lie, just one big front! They don't want them at all in Creekmoor, anywhere else bar Creekmoor. And there was me, going to put the whole of Creekmoor up for a humanitarian award.
You're beginning to sound like a party political broadcast. I take pleasure in copying my response to you from another thread regarding the above. Please read it this time.

Initially Creekmoor residents were annoyed at the underhand way Mayor Eades and others pulled the TSP out of the hat and dumped it on Creekmoor. As has been mentioned in an earlier post, £250.000 was paid to a consultant who recommended amongst other prime choices Branksome as one of the most suitable location. Creekmoor had already been discounted and didn't feature in the report. Later it became apparent Creekmoor had other issues that made it unsuitable. At the time categorical assurances were made that the P&R was out of the question as per government restrictions on its use. Hence our annoyance now. Thus far I estimate more than £500.000 of tax payers money has been wasted on this matter. No wonder these travellers think we are all a joke.

At least we know who is asking for comments to be removed.
Firstly, I'm a great believer in free speech and would never ask for anyone's comments to be removed any more that I would want mine removed. Secondly, you are the one who needs to read my post. Obviously you were all upset for the reasons you mention. Why didn't you state in simple words 'we don't want travellers on our patch' rather than the sob story's that you were 'solely concerned with their welfare' which we all knew was bull s**t. That is all I am saying.
Firstly I apologise. I should have said, I have an indication as to who may be asking for post to be removed. Sorry

No, I am against a TSP site being placed near any residential area, and not specifically against genuine travellers. I am upset because it became apparent after the council threw out the planning application I received categorical assurances from a councillor that the P&R would not under any circumstances be used to house travellers. As it is they are not affecting me but I do object to my taxes being used to clean up after them.
[quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: When these TSP's were first talked about being put in Creekmoor all the local residents were up in arms and really concerned for the travellers welfare. So much so, that they wrote in their hundreds, worried that the traveller children and adults were in danger because of the entrance on a main road. They were really worried about the travellers being subjected to obnoxious fumes etc. still in ground. It was all really quite heart warming, the feelings that they had for their fellow human beings! Then, what a let down, as we now see that it was all a lie, just one big front! They don't want them at all in Creekmoor, anywhere else bar Creekmoor. And there was me, going to put the whole of Creekmoor up for a humanitarian award.[/p][/quote]You're beginning to sound like a party political broadcast. I take pleasure in copying my response to you from another thread regarding the above. Please read it this time. Initially Creekmoor residents were annoyed at the underhand way Mayor Eades and others pulled the TSP out of the hat and dumped it on Creekmoor. As has been mentioned in an earlier post, £250.000 was paid to a consultant who recommended amongst other prime choices Branksome as one of the most suitable location. Creekmoor had already been discounted and didn't feature in the report. Later it became apparent Creekmoor had other issues that made it unsuitable. At the time categorical assurances were made that the P&R was out of the question as per government restrictions on its use. Hence our annoyance now. Thus far I estimate more than £500.000 of tax payers money has been wasted on this matter. No wonder these travellers think we are all a joke. At least we know who is asking for comments to be removed.[/p][/quote]Firstly, I'm a great believer in free speech and would never ask for anyone's comments to be removed any more that I would want mine removed. Secondly, you are the one who needs to read my post. Obviously you were all upset for the reasons you mention. Why didn't you state in simple words 'we don't want travellers on our patch' rather than the sob story's that you were 'solely concerned with their welfare' which we all knew was bull s**t. That is all I am saying.[/p][/quote]Firstly I apologise. I should have said, I have an indication as to who may be asking for post to be removed. Sorry No, I am against a TSP site being placed near any residential area, and not specifically against genuine travellers. I am upset because it became apparent after the council threw out the planning application I received categorical assurances from a councillor that the P&R would not under any circumstances be used to house travellers. As it is they are not affecting me but I do object to my taxes being used to clean up after them. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 6

4:29pm Thu 14 Aug 14

BigAlfromsunnyBournemouth says...

I know this is an unpopular view, but I think Poole Council have got this correct, they have adopted a sensible and pragmatic approach in allowing them to stay on the Creekmoor park and ride site, but there really is nowhere else that is suitable.

Yes it's unpopular with Creekmoor residents but if you actually look at the site dispassionately, it's very isolated, surrounded on one side by the A350 dual carriageway to the Baker's Arms, and on the other side by the A35 Upton Road from the Creekmoor roundabout towards Upton Country Park, both very busy roads. It's remote from local housing and there are only two entrances to the site making entrance and exit easily controlled.

The only thing I think the council have got wrong is that they aren't covering their costs by charging these freeloading holidaymakers a suitable fee.
I know this is an unpopular view, but I think Poole Council have got this correct, they have adopted a sensible and pragmatic approach in allowing them to stay on the Creekmoor park and ride site, but there really is nowhere else that is suitable. Yes it's unpopular with Creekmoor residents but if you actually look at the site dispassionately, it's very isolated, surrounded on one side by the A350 dual carriageway to the Baker's Arms, and on the other side by the A35 Upton Road from the Creekmoor roundabout towards Upton Country Park, both very busy roads. It's remote from local housing and there are only two entrances to the site making entrance and exit easily controlled. The only thing I think the council have got wrong is that they aren't covering their costs by charging these freeloading holidaymakers a suitable fee. BigAlfromsunnyBournemouth
  • Score: 8

4:38pm Thu 14 Aug 14

wend32 says...

I don't know why everyone is saying they are here because of the the steam fair what a load of rubbish this has been going on for months they get away with everything here thats why they keep coming back everyone is so scared of them because they travel in groups
I don't know why everyone is saying they are here because of the the steam fair what a load of rubbish this has been going on for months they get away with everything here thats why they keep coming back everyone is so scared of them because they travel in groups wend32
  • Score: 5

4:39pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Bob49 says...

".............and there are only two entrances to the site making entrance and exit easily controlled."


perhaps you might care to rethink that one again
".............and there are only two entrances to the site making entrance and exit easily controlled." perhaps you might care to rethink that one again Bob49
  • Score: 0

4:50pm Thu 14 Aug 14

boardsandphotos says...

BigAlfromsunnyBourne
mouth
wrote:
I know this is an unpopular view, but I think Poole Council have got this correct, they have adopted a sensible and pragmatic approach in allowing them to stay on the Creekmoor park and ride site, but there really is nowhere else that is suitable.

Yes it's unpopular with Creekmoor residents but if you actually look at the site dispassionately, it's very isolated, surrounded on one side by the A350 dual carriageway to the Baker's Arms, and on the other side by the A35 Upton Road from the Creekmoor roundabout towards Upton Country Park, both very busy roads. It's remote from local housing and there are only two entrances to the site making entrance and exit easily controlled.

The only thing I think the council have got wrong is that they aren't covering their costs by charging these freeloading holidaymakers a suitable fee.
You beat me to it.

The fact of the matter is this problem isn't going to go away anytime soon. The council or the police are not going to put banning orders on traveller for entering the county or arrest them for busting a lock or even for trespass or illegal encampment, it's just not going to happen.

This site, out of all the sites we've seen the travellers turn up on is the most suitable for a pragmatic, realistic approach.

The travellers will move on after the steamfair, they don't actually live in caravans all year round we all know this.

You lot can all sit there posting the same tired old comments time and time again until you are blue in the face, or you can accept things are not going to change overnight and this is the best out of a selection of not very great options.
[quote][p][bold]BigAlfromsunnyBourne mouth[/bold] wrote: I know this is an unpopular view, but I think Poole Council have got this correct, they have adopted a sensible and pragmatic approach in allowing them to stay on the Creekmoor park and ride site, but there really is nowhere else that is suitable. Yes it's unpopular with Creekmoor residents but if you actually look at the site dispassionately, it's very isolated, surrounded on one side by the A350 dual carriageway to the Baker's Arms, and on the other side by the A35 Upton Road from the Creekmoor roundabout towards Upton Country Park, both very busy roads. It's remote from local housing and there are only two entrances to the site making entrance and exit easily controlled. The only thing I think the council have got wrong is that they aren't covering their costs by charging these freeloading holidaymakers a suitable fee.[/p][/quote]You beat me to it. The fact of the matter is this problem isn't going to go away anytime soon. The council or the police are not going to put banning orders on traveller for entering the county or arrest them for busting a lock or even for trespass or illegal encampment, it's just not going to happen. This site, out of all the sites we've seen the travellers turn up on is the most suitable for a pragmatic, realistic approach. The travellers will move on after the steamfair, they don't actually live in caravans all year round we all know this. You lot can all sit there posting the same tired old comments time and time again until you are blue in the face, or you can accept things are not going to change overnight and this is the best out of a selection of not very great options. boardsandphotos
  • Score: -1

5:01pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Wackerone says...

DorsetFerret wrote:
Wackerone wrote:
DorsetFerret wrote:
Wackerone wrote:
When these TSP's were first talked about being put in Creekmoor all the local residents were up in arms and really concerned for the travellers welfare. So much so, that they wrote in their hundreds, worried that the traveller children and adults were in danger because of the entrance on a main road. They were really worried about the travellers being subjected to obnoxious fumes etc. still in ground. It was all really quite heart warming, the feelings that they had for their fellow human beings! Then, what a let down, as we now see that it was all a lie, just one big front! They don't want them at all in Creekmoor, anywhere else bar Creekmoor. And there was me, going to put the whole of Creekmoor up for a humanitarian award.
You're beginning to sound like a party political broadcast. I take pleasure in copying my response to you from another thread regarding the above. Please read it this time.

Initially Creekmoor residents were annoyed at the underhand way Mayor Eades and others pulled the TSP out of the hat and dumped it on Creekmoor. As has been mentioned in an earlier post, £250.000 was paid to a consultant who recommended amongst other prime choices Branksome as one of the most suitable location. Creekmoor had already been discounted and didn't feature in the report. Later it became apparent Creekmoor had other issues that made it unsuitable. At the time categorical assurances were made that the P&R was out of the question as per government restrictions on its use. Hence our annoyance now. Thus far I estimate more than £500.000 of tax payers money has been wasted on this matter. No wonder these travellers think we are all a joke.

At least we know who is asking for comments to be removed.
Firstly, I'm a great believer in free speech and would never ask for anyone's comments to be removed any more that I would want mine removed. Secondly, you are the one who needs to read my post. Obviously you were all upset for the reasons you mention. Why didn't you state in simple words 'we don't want travellers on our patch' rather than the sob story's that you were 'solely concerned with their welfare' which we all knew was bull s**t. That is all I am saying.
Firstly I apologise. I should have said, I have an indication as to who may be asking for post to be removed. Sorry

No, I am against a TSP site being placed near any residential area, and not specifically against genuine travellers. I am upset because it became apparent after the council threw out the planning application I received categorical assurances from a councillor that the P&R would not under any circumstances be used to house travellers. As it is they are not affecting me but I do object to my taxes being used to clean up after them.
Apology accepted, thankyou.
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: When these TSP's were first talked about being put in Creekmoor all the local residents were up in arms and really concerned for the travellers welfare. So much so, that they wrote in their hundreds, worried that the traveller children and adults were in danger because of the entrance on a main road. They were really worried about the travellers being subjected to obnoxious fumes etc. still in ground. It was all really quite heart warming, the feelings that they had for their fellow human beings! Then, what a let down, as we now see that it was all a lie, just one big front! They don't want them at all in Creekmoor, anywhere else bar Creekmoor. And there was me, going to put the whole of Creekmoor up for a humanitarian award.[/p][/quote]You're beginning to sound like a party political broadcast. I take pleasure in copying my response to you from another thread regarding the above. Please read it this time. Initially Creekmoor residents were annoyed at the underhand way Mayor Eades and others pulled the TSP out of the hat and dumped it on Creekmoor. As has been mentioned in an earlier post, £250.000 was paid to a consultant who recommended amongst other prime choices Branksome as one of the most suitable location. Creekmoor had already been discounted and didn't feature in the report. Later it became apparent Creekmoor had other issues that made it unsuitable. At the time categorical assurances were made that the P&R was out of the question as per government restrictions on its use. Hence our annoyance now. Thus far I estimate more than £500.000 of tax payers money has been wasted on this matter. No wonder these travellers think we are all a joke. At least we know who is asking for comments to be removed.[/p][/quote]Firstly, I'm a great believer in free speech and would never ask for anyone's comments to be removed any more that I would want mine removed. Secondly, you are the one who needs to read my post. Obviously you were all upset for the reasons you mention. Why didn't you state in simple words 'we don't want travellers on our patch' rather than the sob story's that you were 'solely concerned with their welfare' which we all knew was bull s**t. That is all I am saying.[/p][/quote]Firstly I apologise. I should have said, I have an indication as to who may be asking for post to be removed. Sorry No, I am against a TSP site being placed near any residential area, and not specifically against genuine travellers. I am upset because it became apparent after the council threw out the planning application I received categorical assurances from a councillor that the P&R would not under any circumstances be used to house travellers. As it is they are not affecting me but I do object to my taxes being used to clean up after them.[/p][/quote]Apology accepted, thankyou. Wackerone
  • Score: 2

5:01pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Wackerone says...

DorsetFerret wrote:
Wackerone wrote:
DorsetFerret wrote:
Wackerone wrote:
When these TSP's were first talked about being put in Creekmoor all the local residents were up in arms and really concerned for the travellers welfare. So much so, that they wrote in their hundreds, worried that the traveller children and adults were in danger because of the entrance on a main road. They were really worried about the travellers being subjected to obnoxious fumes etc. still in ground. It was all really quite heart warming, the feelings that they had for their fellow human beings! Then, what a let down, as we now see that it was all a lie, just one big front! They don't want them at all in Creekmoor, anywhere else bar Creekmoor. And there was me, going to put the whole of Creekmoor up for a humanitarian award.
You're beginning to sound like a party political broadcast. I take pleasure in copying my response to you from another thread regarding the above. Please read it this time.

Initially Creekmoor residents were annoyed at the underhand way Mayor Eades and others pulled the TSP out of the hat and dumped it on Creekmoor. As has been mentioned in an earlier post, £250.000 was paid to a consultant who recommended amongst other prime choices Branksome as one of the most suitable location. Creekmoor had already been discounted and didn't feature in the report. Later it became apparent Creekmoor had other issues that made it unsuitable. At the time categorical assurances were made that the P&R was out of the question as per government restrictions on its use. Hence our annoyance now. Thus far I estimate more than £500.000 of tax payers money has been wasted on this matter. No wonder these travellers think we are all a joke.

At least we know who is asking for comments to be removed.
Firstly, I'm a great believer in free speech and would never ask for anyone's comments to be removed any more that I would want mine removed. Secondly, you are the one who needs to read my post. Obviously you were all upset for the reasons you mention. Why didn't you state in simple words 'we don't want travellers on our patch' rather than the sob story's that you were 'solely concerned with their welfare' which we all knew was bull s**t. That is all I am saying.
Firstly I apologise. I should have said, I have an indication as to who may be asking for post to be removed. Sorry

No, I am against a TSP site being placed near any residential area, and not specifically against genuine travellers. I am upset because it became apparent after the council threw out the planning application I received categorical assurances from a councillor that the P&R would not under any circumstances be used to house travellers. As it is they are not affecting me but I do object to my taxes being used to clean up after them.
Apology accepted, thankyou.
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: When these TSP's were first talked about being put in Creekmoor all the local residents were up in arms and really concerned for the travellers welfare. So much so, that they wrote in their hundreds, worried that the traveller children and adults were in danger because of the entrance on a main road. They were really worried about the travellers being subjected to obnoxious fumes etc. still in ground. It was all really quite heart warming, the feelings that they had for their fellow human beings! Then, what a let down, as we now see that it was all a lie, just one big front! They don't want them at all in Creekmoor, anywhere else bar Creekmoor. And there was me, going to put the whole of Creekmoor up for a humanitarian award.[/p][/quote]You're beginning to sound like a party political broadcast. I take pleasure in copying my response to you from another thread regarding the above. Please read it this time. Initially Creekmoor residents were annoyed at the underhand way Mayor Eades and others pulled the TSP out of the hat and dumped it on Creekmoor. As has been mentioned in an earlier post, £250.000 was paid to a consultant who recommended amongst other prime choices Branksome as one of the most suitable location. Creekmoor had already been discounted and didn't feature in the report. Later it became apparent Creekmoor had other issues that made it unsuitable. At the time categorical assurances were made that the P&R was out of the question as per government restrictions on its use. Hence our annoyance now. Thus far I estimate more than £500.000 of tax payers money has been wasted on this matter. No wonder these travellers think we are all a joke. At least we know who is asking for comments to be removed.[/p][/quote]Firstly, I'm a great believer in free speech and would never ask for anyone's comments to be removed any more that I would want mine removed. Secondly, you are the one who needs to read my post. Obviously you were all upset for the reasons you mention. Why didn't you state in simple words 'we don't want travellers on our patch' rather than the sob story's that you were 'solely concerned with their welfare' which we all knew was bull s**t. That is all I am saying.[/p][/quote]Firstly I apologise. I should have said, I have an indication as to who may be asking for post to be removed. Sorry No, I am against a TSP site being placed near any residential area, and not specifically against genuine travellers. I am upset because it became apparent after the council threw out the planning application I received categorical assurances from a councillor that the P&R would not under any circumstances be used to house travellers. As it is they are not affecting me but I do object to my taxes being used to clean up after them.[/p][/quote]Apology accepted, thankyou. Wackerone
  • Score: 2

5:10pm Thu 14 Aug 14

breamoreboy says...

apm1954 wrote:
Elections 2015.
My prediction.

Blue Rinse Brigade 1.

The Rest 0.
[quote][p][bold]apm1954[/bold] wrote: Elections 2015.[/p][/quote]My prediction. Blue Rinse Brigade 1. The Rest 0. breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

5:13pm Thu 14 Aug 14

TheDistrict says...

boardsandphotos wrote:
BigAlfromsunnyBourne

mouth
wrote:
I know this is an unpopular view, but I think Poole Council have got this correct, they have adopted a sensible and pragmatic approach in allowing them to stay on the Creekmoor park and ride site, but there really is nowhere else that is suitable.

Yes it's unpopular with Creekmoor residents but if you actually look at the site dispassionately, it's very isolated, surrounded on one side by the A350 dual carriageway to the Baker's Arms, and on the other side by the A35 Upton Road from the Creekmoor roundabout towards Upton Country Park, both very busy roads. It's remote from local housing and there are only two entrances to the site making entrance and exit easily controlled.

The only thing I think the council have got wrong is that they aren't covering their costs by charging these freeloading holidaymakers a suitable fee.
You beat me to it.

The fact of the matter is this problem isn't going to go away anytime soon. The council or the police are not going to put banning orders on traveller for entering the county or arrest them for busting a lock or even for trespass or illegal encampment, it's just not going to happen.

This site, out of all the sites we've seen the travellers turn up on is the most suitable for a pragmatic, realistic approach.

The travellers will move on after the steamfair, they don't actually live in caravans all year round we all know this.

You lot can all sit there posting the same tired old comments time and time again until you are blue in the face, or you can accept things are not going to change overnight and this is the best out of a selection of not very great options.
You obviously have not read all stories and accompanying posts. If you had you will have read that no camp site will do. They will move on as soon as another group telephones and tell them that there is a better site elsewhere. They do not like authority or being organised. They will move when they ate ready. Who is going to stop them. No one. Poole Council is living in hope.
[quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigAlfromsunnyBourne mouth[/bold] wrote: I know this is an unpopular view, but I think Poole Council have got this correct, they have adopted a sensible and pragmatic approach in allowing them to stay on the Creekmoor park and ride site, but there really is nowhere else that is suitable. Yes it's unpopular with Creekmoor residents but if you actually look at the site dispassionately, it's very isolated, surrounded on one side by the A350 dual carriageway to the Baker's Arms, and on the other side by the A35 Upton Road from the Creekmoor roundabout towards Upton Country Park, both very busy roads. It's remote from local housing and there are only two entrances to the site making entrance and exit easily controlled. The only thing I think the council have got wrong is that they aren't covering their costs by charging these freeloading holidaymakers a suitable fee.[/p][/quote]You beat me to it. The fact of the matter is this problem isn't going to go away anytime soon. The council or the police are not going to put banning orders on traveller for entering the county or arrest them for busting a lock or even for trespass or illegal encampment, it's just not going to happen. This site, out of all the sites we've seen the travellers turn up on is the most suitable for a pragmatic, realistic approach. The travellers will move on after the steamfair, they don't actually live in caravans all year round we all know this. You lot can all sit there posting the same tired old comments time and time again until you are blue in the face, or you can accept things are not going to change overnight and this is the best out of a selection of not very great options.[/p][/quote]You obviously have not read all stories and accompanying posts. If you had you will have read that no camp site will do. They will move on as soon as another group telephones and tell them that there is a better site elsewhere. They do not like authority or being organised. They will move when they ate ready. Who is going to stop them. No one. Poole Council is living in hope. TheDistrict
  • Score: -2

5:13pm Thu 14 Aug 14

breamoreboy says...

TheDistrict wrote:
What does the sign say on the gate;

NO UNAUTHORISED ENTRY

Yet, they broke in forcing an unauthorised entry. Poole Council, you cannot put a sign in place saying one thing, then allowing it to be broken. Think of the chaos if we all broke the law by disobeying signs. Here is one for the travellers: V
Mr Churchill made that famous, V for Victory. Sadly there's only one winner here. Any guesses?
[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: What does the sign say on the gate; NO UNAUTHORISED ENTRY Yet, they broke in forcing an unauthorised entry. Poole Council, you cannot put a sign in place saying one thing, then allowing it to be broken. Think of the chaos if we all broke the law by disobeying signs. Here is one for the travellers: V[/p][/quote]Mr Churchill made that famous, V for Victory. Sadly there's only one winner here. Any guesses? breamoreboy
  • Score: -3

5:16pm Thu 14 Aug 14

breamoreboy says...

Franks Tank wrote:
It'd be a shame if they got blocked in just before the steam fair and couldn't go.
Then owing to environmental issues the Fire and Rescue Service turned up and hosed the lot of them down. They could even be introduced to soap at the same time that they learned about water.
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: It'd be a shame if they got blocked in just before the steam fair and couldn't go.[/p][/quote]Then owing to environmental issues the Fire and Rescue Service turned up and hosed the lot of them down. They could even be introduced to soap at the same time that they learned about water. breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

5:28pm Thu 14 Aug 14

boardsandphotos says...

TheDistrict wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
BigAlfromsunnyBourne


mouth
wrote:
I know this is an unpopular view, but I think Poole Council have got this correct, they have adopted a sensible and pragmatic approach in allowing them to stay on the Creekmoor park and ride site, but there really is nowhere else that is suitable.

Yes it's unpopular with Creekmoor residents but if you actually look at the site dispassionately, it's very isolated, surrounded on one side by the A350 dual carriageway to the Baker's Arms, and on the other side by the A35 Upton Road from the Creekmoor roundabout towards Upton Country Park, both very busy roads. It's remote from local housing and there are only two entrances to the site making entrance and exit easily controlled.

The only thing I think the council have got wrong is that they aren't covering their costs by charging these freeloading holidaymakers a suitable fee.
You beat me to it.

The fact of the matter is this problem isn't going to go away anytime soon. The council or the police are not going to put banning orders on traveller for entering the county or arrest them for busting a lock or even for trespass or illegal encampment, it's just not going to happen.

This site, out of all the sites we've seen the travellers turn up on is the most suitable for a pragmatic, realistic approach.

The travellers will move on after the steamfair, they don't actually live in caravans all year round we all know this.

You lot can all sit there posting the same tired old comments time and time again until you are blue in the face, or you can accept things are not going to change overnight and this is the best out of a selection of not very great options.
You obviously have not read all stories and accompanying posts. If you had you will have read that no camp site will do. They will move on as soon as another group telephones and tell them that there is a better site elsewhere. They do not like authority or being organised. They will move when they ate ready. Who is going to stop them. No one. Poole Council is living in hope.
No I've not read the 100+ comments that appear on every story about travellers, i've actually got better things to do.

However, this I do know....

This is the first instance whereby the council have stated they will NOT be looking to actively remove the travellers with a court order. This is the first time the travellers have been told 'you can stay until this date' without the threat of court action.

As you said, the travellers move on, but usually it's due to the threat of legal action.

This is a unique situation and I think the most sensible approach has been taken because a) it costs money to remove them and b) they will go anyway if they want to so why not try to keep them on what is actually a remote site that isn't a park or open space used by the public.
[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigAlfromsunnyBourne mouth[/bold] wrote: I know this is an unpopular view, but I think Poole Council have got this correct, they have adopted a sensible and pragmatic approach in allowing them to stay on the Creekmoor park and ride site, but there really is nowhere else that is suitable. Yes it's unpopular with Creekmoor residents but if you actually look at the site dispassionately, it's very isolated, surrounded on one side by the A350 dual carriageway to the Baker's Arms, and on the other side by the A35 Upton Road from the Creekmoor roundabout towards Upton Country Park, both very busy roads. It's remote from local housing and there are only two entrances to the site making entrance and exit easily controlled. The only thing I think the council have got wrong is that they aren't covering their costs by charging these freeloading holidaymakers a suitable fee.[/p][/quote]You beat me to it. The fact of the matter is this problem isn't going to go away anytime soon. The council or the police are not going to put banning orders on traveller for entering the county or arrest them for busting a lock or even for trespass or illegal encampment, it's just not going to happen. This site, out of all the sites we've seen the travellers turn up on is the most suitable for a pragmatic, realistic approach. The travellers will move on after the steamfair, they don't actually live in caravans all year round we all know this. You lot can all sit there posting the same tired old comments time and time again until you are blue in the face, or you can accept things are not going to change overnight and this is the best out of a selection of not very great options.[/p][/quote]You obviously have not read all stories and accompanying posts. If you had you will have read that no camp site will do. They will move on as soon as another group telephones and tell them that there is a better site elsewhere. They do not like authority or being organised. They will move when they ate ready. Who is going to stop them. No one. Poole Council is living in hope.[/p][/quote]No I've not read the 100+ comments that appear on every story about travellers, i've actually got better things to do. However, this I do know.... This is the first instance whereby the council have stated they will NOT be looking to actively remove the travellers with a court order. This is the first time the travellers have been told 'you can stay until this date' without the threat of court action. As you said, the travellers move on, but usually it's due to the threat of legal action. This is a unique situation and I think the most sensible approach has been taken because a) it costs money to remove them and b) they will go anyway if they want to so why not try to keep them on what is actually a remote site that isn't a park or open space used by the public. boardsandphotos
  • Score: -1

5:32pm Thu 14 Aug 14

breamoreboy says...

Would the length of their stay at Sandbanks have been measured in hours or minutes?
Would the length of their stay at Sandbanks have been measured in hours or minutes? breamoreboy
  • Score: 9

5:54pm Thu 14 Aug 14

DiggerRuss says...

boardsandphotos wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
BigAlfromsunnyBourne



mouth
wrote:
I know this is an unpopular view, but I think Poole Council have got this correct, they have adopted a sensible and pragmatic approach in allowing them to stay on the Creekmoor park and ride site, but there really is nowhere else that is suitable.

Yes it's unpopular with Creekmoor residents but if you actually look at the site dispassionately, it's very isolated, surrounded on one side by the A350 dual carriageway to the Baker's Arms, and on the other side by the A35 Upton Road from the Creekmoor roundabout towards Upton Country Park, both very busy roads. It's remote from local housing and there are only two entrances to the site making entrance and exit easily controlled.

The only thing I think the council have got wrong is that they aren't covering their costs by charging these freeloading holidaymakers a suitable fee.
You beat me to it.

The fact of the matter is this problem isn't going to go away anytime soon. The council or the police are not going to put banning orders on traveller for entering the county or arrest them for busting a lock or even for trespass or illegal encampment, it's just not going to happen.

This site, out of all the sites we've seen the travellers turn up on is the most suitable for a pragmatic, realistic approach.

The travellers will move on after the steamfair, they don't actually live in caravans all year round we all know this.

You lot can all sit there posting the same tired old comments time and time again until you are blue in the face, or you can accept things are not going to change overnight and this is the best out of a selection of not very great options.
You obviously have not read all stories and accompanying posts. If you had you will have read that no camp site will do. They will move on as soon as another group telephones and tell them that there is a better site elsewhere. They do not like authority or being organised. They will move when they ate ready. Who is going to stop them. No one. Poole Council is living in hope.
No I've not read the 100+ comments that appear on every story about travellers, i've actually got better things to do.

However, this I do know....

This is the first instance whereby the council have stated they will NOT be looking to actively remove the travellers with a court order. This is the first time the travellers have been told 'you can stay until this date' without the threat of court action.

As you said, the travellers move on, but usually it's due to the threat of legal action.

This is a unique situation and I think the most sensible approach has been taken because a) it costs money to remove them and b) they will go anyway if they want to so why not try to keep them on what is actually a remote site that isn't a park or open space used by the public.
Tell that to those in the houses opposite the park and ride!
[quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigAlfromsunnyBourne mouth[/bold] wrote: I know this is an unpopular view, but I think Poole Council have got this correct, they have adopted a sensible and pragmatic approach in allowing them to stay on the Creekmoor park and ride site, but there really is nowhere else that is suitable. Yes it's unpopular with Creekmoor residents but if you actually look at the site dispassionately, it's very isolated, surrounded on one side by the A350 dual carriageway to the Baker's Arms, and on the other side by the A35 Upton Road from the Creekmoor roundabout towards Upton Country Park, both very busy roads. It's remote from local housing and there are only two entrances to the site making entrance and exit easily controlled. The only thing I think the council have got wrong is that they aren't covering their costs by charging these freeloading holidaymakers a suitable fee.[/p][/quote]You beat me to it. The fact of the matter is this problem isn't going to go away anytime soon. The council or the police are not going to put banning orders on traveller for entering the county or arrest them for busting a lock or even for trespass or illegal encampment, it's just not going to happen. This site, out of all the sites we've seen the travellers turn up on is the most suitable for a pragmatic, realistic approach. The travellers will move on after the steamfair, they don't actually live in caravans all year round we all know this. You lot can all sit there posting the same tired old comments time and time again until you are blue in the face, or you can accept things are not going to change overnight and this is the best out of a selection of not very great options.[/p][/quote]You obviously have not read all stories and accompanying posts. If you had you will have read that no camp site will do. They will move on as soon as another group telephones and tell them that there is a better site elsewhere. They do not like authority or being organised. They will move when they ate ready. Who is going to stop them. No one. Poole Council is living in hope.[/p][/quote]No I've not read the 100+ comments that appear on every story about travellers, i've actually got better things to do. However, this I do know.... This is the first instance whereby the council have stated they will NOT be looking to actively remove the travellers with a court order. This is the first time the travellers have been told 'you can stay until this date' without the threat of court action. As you said, the travellers move on, but usually it's due to the threat of legal action. This is a unique situation and I think the most sensible approach has been taken because a) it costs money to remove them and b) they will go anyway if they want to so why not try to keep them on what is actually a remote site that isn't a park or open space used by the public.[/p][/quote]Tell that to those in the houses opposite the park and ride! DiggerRuss
  • Score: 4

6:29pm Thu 14 Aug 14

FuturePM says...

I wonder what would happen if this was in Sandbanks, Branksome Park, Lilliput or Christchurch!!!
I wonder what would happen if this was in Sandbanks, Branksome Park, Lilliput or Christchurch!!! FuturePM
  • Score: 4

6:29pm Thu 14 Aug 14

davecook says...

Travellers bring out the nimbyism even more than windmills or fracking! The fact is these people are currently protected and can do what they want, and whilst the park and ride was on the cards for a temporary site, they decided they didn't want it, as they would be shoved there instantly from any other site of their choosing. However, now it is not the approved temporary site, they suddenly forget the gas in the ground and any other rubbish excuses that were bandied about at the time. I personally never had a problem with the Creekmoor park and ride, they always leave a diabolical mess wherever they stay, and the park and ride site is a mess anyway, so it won't go downhill that much!
Travellers bring out the nimbyism even more than windmills or fracking! The fact is these people are currently protected and can do what they want, and whilst the park and ride was on the cards for a temporary site, they decided they didn't want it, as they would be shoved there instantly from any other site of their choosing. However, now it is not the approved temporary site, they suddenly forget the gas in the ground and any other rubbish excuses that were bandied about at the time. I personally never had a problem with the Creekmoor park and ride, they always leave a diabolical mess wherever they stay, and the park and ride site is a mess anyway, so it won't go downhill that much! davecook
  • Score: -4

6:31pm Thu 14 Aug 14

FuturePM says...

And I think we should also remember those councillors in 2015....

I am often minded to stand as an independent in Creekmoor ward... we are not having our voices heard.
And I think we should also remember those councillors in 2015.... I am often minded to stand as an independent in Creekmoor ward... we are not having our voices heard. FuturePM
  • Score: -1

6:34pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Carolyn43 says...

DiggerRuss wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
BigAlfromsunnyBourne




mouth
wrote:
I know this is an unpopular view, but I think Poole Council have got this correct, they have adopted a sensible and pragmatic approach in allowing them to stay on the Creekmoor park and ride site, but there really is nowhere else that is suitable.

Yes it's unpopular with Creekmoor residents but if you actually look at the site dispassionately, it's very isolated, surrounded on one side by the A350 dual carriageway to the Baker's Arms, and on the other side by the A35 Upton Road from the Creekmoor roundabout towards Upton Country Park, both very busy roads. It's remote from local housing and there are only two entrances to the site making entrance and exit easily controlled.

The only thing I think the council have got wrong is that they aren't covering their costs by charging these freeloading holidaymakers a suitable fee.
You beat me to it.

The fact of the matter is this problem isn't going to go away anytime soon. The council or the police are not going to put banning orders on traveller for entering the county or arrest them for busting a lock or even for trespass or illegal encampment, it's just not going to happen.

This site, out of all the sites we've seen the travellers turn up on is the most suitable for a pragmatic, realistic approach.

The travellers will move on after the steamfair, they don't actually live in caravans all year round we all know this.

You lot can all sit there posting the same tired old comments time and time again until you are blue in the face, or you can accept things are not going to change overnight and this is the best out of a selection of not very great options.
You obviously have not read all stories and accompanying posts. If you had you will have read that no camp site will do. They will move on as soon as another group telephones and tell them that there is a better site elsewhere. They do not like authority or being organised. They will move when they ate ready. Who is going to stop them. No one. Poole Council is living in hope.
No I've not read the 100+ comments that appear on every story about travellers, i've actually got better things to do.

However, this I do know....

This is the first instance whereby the council have stated they will NOT be looking to actively remove the travellers with a court order. This is the first time the travellers have been told 'you can stay until this date' without the threat of court action.

As you said, the travellers move on, but usually it's due to the threat of legal action.

This is a unique situation and I think the most sensible approach has been taken because a) it costs money to remove them and b) they will go anyway if they want to so why not try to keep them on what is actually a remote site that isn't a park or open space used by the public.
Tell that to those in the houses opposite the park and ride!
Yes there are 16 families living opposite the park and ride having their sleep interrupted by generators going all night and barking dogs. But hey, who cares . Those people don't matter so long as no-one else gets their sleep interrupted.

Anyone who thinks it's isolated has not been anywhere near it. That's one of the problems with some comments - the writers don't bother to check the facts before posting.
[quote][p][bold]DiggerRuss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigAlfromsunnyBourne mouth[/bold] wrote: I know this is an unpopular view, but I think Poole Council have got this correct, they have adopted a sensible and pragmatic approach in allowing them to stay on the Creekmoor park and ride site, but there really is nowhere else that is suitable. Yes it's unpopular with Creekmoor residents but if you actually look at the site dispassionately, it's very isolated, surrounded on one side by the A350 dual carriageway to the Baker's Arms, and on the other side by the A35 Upton Road from the Creekmoor roundabout towards Upton Country Park, both very busy roads. It's remote from local housing and there are only two entrances to the site making entrance and exit easily controlled. The only thing I think the council have got wrong is that they aren't covering their costs by charging these freeloading holidaymakers a suitable fee.[/p][/quote]You beat me to it. The fact of the matter is this problem isn't going to go away anytime soon. The council or the police are not going to put banning orders on traveller for entering the county or arrest them for busting a lock or even for trespass or illegal encampment, it's just not going to happen. This site, out of all the sites we've seen the travellers turn up on is the most suitable for a pragmatic, realistic approach. The travellers will move on after the steamfair, they don't actually live in caravans all year round we all know this. You lot can all sit there posting the same tired old comments time and time again until you are blue in the face, or you can accept things are not going to change overnight and this is the best out of a selection of not very great options.[/p][/quote]You obviously have not read all stories and accompanying posts. If you had you will have read that no camp site will do. They will move on as soon as another group telephones and tell them that there is a better site elsewhere. They do not like authority or being organised. They will move when they ate ready. Who is going to stop them. No one. Poole Council is living in hope.[/p][/quote]No I've not read the 100+ comments that appear on every story about travellers, i've actually got better things to do. However, this I do know.... This is the first instance whereby the council have stated they will NOT be looking to actively remove the travellers with a court order. This is the first time the travellers have been told 'you can stay until this date' without the threat of court action. As you said, the travellers move on, but usually it's due to the threat of legal action. This is a unique situation and I think the most sensible approach has been taken because a) it costs money to remove them and b) they will go anyway if they want to so why not try to keep them on what is actually a remote site that isn't a park or open space used by the public.[/p][/quote]Tell that to those in the houses opposite the park and ride![/p][/quote]Yes there are 16 families living opposite the park and ride having their sleep interrupted by generators going all night and barking dogs. But hey, who cares . Those people don't matter so long as no-one else gets their sleep interrupted. Anyone who thinks it's isolated has not been anywhere near it. That's one of the problems with some comments - the writers don't bother to check the facts before posting. Carolyn43
  • Score: 5

6:35pm Thu 14 Aug 14

FuturePM says...

And one final point; why is the park and ride such a monstrosity? It should not be there anymore. If they are going to do anything with it; change it in to a mini store like the Tesco up on Ringwood road or something. It is just land that is sat there and absolutely pointlessly left untouched. I know the Lib Dems really wanted it but its been a total waste of time. If there is not going to be shops there then turn it in to housing land.
And one final point; why is the park and ride such a monstrosity? It should not be there anymore. If they are going to do anything with it; change it in to a mini store like the Tesco up on Ringwood road or something. It is just land that is sat there and absolutely pointlessly left untouched. I know the Lib Dems really wanted it but its been a total waste of time. If there is not going to be shops there then turn it in to housing land. FuturePM
  • Score: 2

6:48pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Carolyn43 says...

FuturePM wrote:
And one final point; why is the park and ride such a monstrosity? It should not be there anymore. If they are going to do anything with it; change it in to a mini store like the Tesco up on Ringwood road or something. It is just land that is sat there and absolutely pointlessly left untouched. I know the Lib Dems really wanted it but its been a total waste of time. If there is not going to be shops there then turn it in to housing land.
I notice my posts have been removed too. Seems the only ones allowed are those who say Creekmoor residents should have to put up with the travellers so they don't get them near where they live. I bet many of them have never even seen where the park and ride is - opposite 16 homes.

Future PM, I assume you are aware that a grant from the Department of Transport was accepted to build the park and ride for transport purposes only. Even the council weren't sure if they could legally put in larger bays for legitimate visitors with motor homes using the park and ride as a park and ride.

Now watch this get removed.
[quote][p][bold]FuturePM[/bold] wrote: And one final point; why is the park and ride such a monstrosity? It should not be there anymore. If they are going to do anything with it; change it in to a mini store like the Tesco up on Ringwood road or something. It is just land that is sat there and absolutely pointlessly left untouched. I know the Lib Dems really wanted it but its been a total waste of time. If there is not going to be shops there then turn it in to housing land.[/p][/quote]I notice my posts have been removed too. Seems the only ones allowed are those who say Creekmoor residents should have to put up with the travellers so they don't get them near where they live. I bet many of them have never even seen where the park and ride is - opposite 16 homes. Future PM, I assume you are aware that a grant from the Department of Transport was accepted to build the park and ride for transport purposes only. Even the council weren't sure if they could legally put in larger bays for legitimate visitors with motor homes using the park and ride as a park and ride. Now watch this get removed. Carolyn43
  • Score: 1

6:48pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Wackerone says...

FuturePM wrote:
I wonder what would happen if this was in Sandbanks, Branksome Park, Lilliput or Christchurch!!!
We wouldn't be happy.
[quote][p][bold]FuturePM[/bold] wrote: I wonder what would happen if this was in Sandbanks, Branksome Park, Lilliput or Christchurch!!![/p][/quote]We wouldn't be happy. Wackerone
  • Score: -1

6:49pm Thu 14 Aug 14

boardsandphotos says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
DiggerRuss wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
BigAlfromsunnyBourne





mouth
wrote:
I know this is an unpopular view, but I think Poole Council have got this correct, they have adopted a sensible and pragmatic approach in allowing them to stay on the Creekmoor park and ride site, but there really is nowhere else that is suitable.

Yes it's unpopular with Creekmoor residents but if you actually look at the site dispassionately, it's very isolated, surrounded on one side by the A350 dual carriageway to the Baker's Arms, and on the other side by the A35 Upton Road from the Creekmoor roundabout towards Upton Country Park, both very busy roads. It's remote from local housing and there are only two entrances to the site making entrance and exit easily controlled.

The only thing I think the council have got wrong is that they aren't covering their costs by charging these freeloading holidaymakers a suitable fee.
You beat me to it.

The fact of the matter is this problem isn't going to go away anytime soon. The council or the police are not going to put banning orders on traveller for entering the county or arrest them for busting a lock or even for trespass or illegal encampment, it's just not going to happen.

This site, out of all the sites we've seen the travellers turn up on is the most suitable for a pragmatic, realistic approach.

The travellers will move on after the steamfair, they don't actually live in caravans all year round we all know this.

You lot can all sit there posting the same tired old comments time and time again until you are blue in the face, or you can accept things are not going to change overnight and this is the best out of a selection of not very great options.
You obviously have not read all stories and accompanying posts. If you had you will have read that no camp site will do. They will move on as soon as another group telephones and tell them that there is a better site elsewhere. They do not like authority or being organised. They will move when they ate ready. Who is going to stop them. No one. Poole Council is living in hope.
No I've not read the 100+ comments that appear on every story about travellers, i've actually got better things to do.

However, this I do know....

This is the first instance whereby the council have stated they will NOT be looking to actively remove the travellers with a court order. This is the first time the travellers have been told 'you can stay until this date' without the threat of court action.

As you said, the travellers move on, but usually it's due to the threat of legal action.

This is a unique situation and I think the most sensible approach has been taken because a) it costs money to remove them and b) they will go anyway if they want to so why not try to keep them on what is actually a remote site that isn't a park or open space used by the public.
Tell that to those in the houses opposite the park and ride!
Yes there are 16 families living opposite the park and ride having their sleep interrupted by generators going all night and barking dogs. But hey, who cares . Those people don't matter so long as no-one else gets their sleep interrupted.

Anyone who thinks it's isolated has not been anywhere near it. That's one of the problems with some comments - the writers don't bother to check the facts before posting.
I didn't say it was a perfect solution.

I said it was probably the best option out of a short list of bad options.

Again, as I said, this situation is simply not going to change anytime soon, I feel for those families but the council have made a decision, to try and contain rather than chasing them all over the borough, spending time snd money on court orders and clean ups.

Yes, it would be great if we could amend the terms of the Court order banning them from the county for 12 months - not going to happen.

Yes it would be great if we could sieze the vehicles but it's not goung to happen.

One day things might be different, one day common sense may prevail and a change in the definition of 'traveller' might be made.

But it's not going to happen anytime soon.......
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DiggerRuss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigAlfromsunnyBourne mouth[/bold] wrote: I know this is an unpopular view, but I think Poole Council have got this correct, they have adopted a sensible and pragmatic approach in allowing them to stay on the Creekmoor park and ride site, but there really is nowhere else that is suitable. Yes it's unpopular with Creekmoor residents but if you actually look at the site dispassionately, it's very isolated, surrounded on one side by the A350 dual carriageway to the Baker's Arms, and on the other side by the A35 Upton Road from the Creekmoor roundabout towards Upton Country Park, both very busy roads. It's remote from local housing and there are only two entrances to the site making entrance and exit easily controlled. The only thing I think the council have got wrong is that they aren't covering their costs by charging these freeloading holidaymakers a suitable fee.[/p][/quote]You beat me to it. The fact of the matter is this problem isn't going to go away anytime soon. The council or the police are not going to put banning orders on traveller for entering the county or arrest them for busting a lock or even for trespass or illegal encampment, it's just not going to happen. This site, out of all the sites we've seen the travellers turn up on is the most suitable for a pragmatic, realistic approach. The travellers will move on after the steamfair, they don't actually live in caravans all year round we all know this. You lot can all sit there posting the same tired old comments time and time again until you are blue in the face, or you can accept things are not going to change overnight and this is the best out of a selection of not very great options.[/p][/quote]You obviously have not read all stories and accompanying posts. If you had you will have read that no camp site will do. They will move on as soon as another group telephones and tell them that there is a better site elsewhere. They do not like authority or being organised. They will move when they ate ready. Who is going to stop them. No one. Poole Council is living in hope.[/p][/quote]No I've not read the 100+ comments that appear on every story about travellers, i've actually got better things to do. However, this I do know.... This is the first instance whereby the council have stated they will NOT be looking to actively remove the travellers with a court order. This is the first time the travellers have been told 'you can stay until this date' without the threat of court action. As you said, the travellers move on, but usually it's due to the threat of legal action. This is a unique situation and I think the most sensible approach has been taken because a) it costs money to remove them and b) they will go anyway if they want to so why not try to keep them on what is actually a remote site that isn't a park or open space used by the public.[/p][/quote]Tell that to those in the houses opposite the park and ride![/p][/quote]Yes there are 16 families living opposite the park and ride having their sleep interrupted by generators going all night and barking dogs. But hey, who cares . Those people don't matter so long as no-one else gets their sleep interrupted. Anyone who thinks it's isolated has not been anywhere near it. That's one of the problems with some comments - the writers don't bother to check the facts before posting.[/p][/quote]I didn't say it was a perfect solution. I said it was probably the best option out of a short list of bad options. Again, as I said, this situation is simply not going to change anytime soon, I feel for those families but the council have made a decision, to try and contain rather than chasing them all over the borough, spending time snd money on court orders and clean ups. Yes, it would be great if we could amend the terms of the Court order banning them from the county for 12 months - not going to happen. Yes it would be great if we could sieze the vehicles but it's not goung to happen. One day things might be different, one day common sense may prevail and a change in the definition of 'traveller' might be made. But it's not going to happen anytime soon....... boardsandphotos
  • Score: 2

6:49pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Wackerone says...

breamoreboy wrote:
Would the length of their stay at Sandbanks have been measured in hours or minutes?
Seconds!
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: Would the length of their stay at Sandbanks have been measured in hours or minutes?[/p][/quote]Seconds! Wackerone
  • Score: 3

6:50pm Thu 14 Aug 14

boardsandphotos says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
DiggerRuss wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
BigAlfromsunnyBourne





mouth
wrote:
I know this is an unpopular view, but I think Poole Council have got this correct, they have adopted a sensible and pragmatic approach in allowing them to stay on the Creekmoor park and ride site, but there really is nowhere else that is suitable.

Yes it's unpopular with Creekmoor residents but if you actually look at the site dispassionately, it's very isolated, surrounded on one side by the A350 dual carriageway to the Baker's Arms, and on the other side by the A35 Upton Road from the Creekmoor roundabout towards Upton Country Park, both very busy roads. It's remote from local housing and there are only two entrances to the site making entrance and exit easily controlled.

The only thing I think the council have got wrong is that they aren't covering their costs by charging these freeloading holidaymakers a suitable fee.
You beat me to it.

The fact of the matter is this problem isn't going to go away anytime soon. The council or the police are not going to put banning orders on traveller for entering the county or arrest them for busting a lock or even for trespass or illegal encampment, it's just not going to happen.

This site, out of all the sites we've seen the travellers turn up on is the most suitable for a pragmatic, realistic approach.

The travellers will move on after the steamfair, they don't actually live in caravans all year round we all know this.

You lot can all sit there posting the same tired old comments time and time again until you are blue in the face, or you can accept things are not going to change overnight and this is the best out of a selection of not very great options.
You obviously have not read all stories and accompanying posts. If you had you will have read that no camp site will do. They will move on as soon as another group telephones and tell them that there is a better site elsewhere. They do not like authority or being organised. They will move when they ate ready. Who is going to stop them. No one. Poole Council is living in hope.
No I've not read the 100+ comments that appear on every story about travellers, i've actually got better things to do.

However, this I do know....

This is the first instance whereby the council have stated they will NOT be looking to actively remove the travellers with a court order. This is the first time the travellers have been told 'you can stay until this date' without the threat of court action.

As you said, the travellers move on, but usually it's due to the threat of legal action.

This is a unique situation and I think the most sensible approach has been taken because a) it costs money to remove them and b) they will go anyway if they want to so why not try to keep them on what is actually a remote site that isn't a park or open space used by the public.
Tell that to those in the houses opposite the park and ride!
Yes there are 16 families living opposite the park and ride having their sleep interrupted by generators going all night and barking dogs. But hey, who cares . Those people don't matter so long as no-one else gets their sleep interrupted.

Anyone who thinks it's isolated has not been anywhere near it. That's one of the problems with some comments - the writers don't bother to check the facts before posting.
I didn't say it was a perfect solution.

I said it was probably the best option out of a short list of bad options.

Again, as I said, this situation is simply not going to change anytime soon, I feel for those families but the council have made a decision, to try and contain rather than chasing them all over the borough, spending time snd money on court orders and clean ups.

Yes, it would be great if we could amend the terms of the Court order banning them from the county for 12 months - not going to happen.

Yes it would be great if we could sieze the vehicles but it's not goung to happen.

One day things might be different, one day common sense may prevail and a change in the definition of 'traveller' might be made.

But it's not going to happen anytime soon.......
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DiggerRuss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigAlfromsunnyBourne mouth[/bold] wrote: I know this is an unpopular view, but I think Poole Council have got this correct, they have adopted a sensible and pragmatic approach in allowing them to stay on the Creekmoor park and ride site, but there really is nowhere else that is suitable. Yes it's unpopular with Creekmoor residents but if you actually look at the site dispassionately, it's very isolated, surrounded on one side by the A350 dual carriageway to the Baker's Arms, and on the other side by the A35 Upton Road from the Creekmoor roundabout towards Upton Country Park, both very busy roads. It's remote from local housing and there are only two entrances to the site making entrance and exit easily controlled. The only thing I think the council have got wrong is that they aren't covering their costs by charging these freeloading holidaymakers a suitable fee.[/p][/quote]You beat me to it. The fact of the matter is this problem isn't going to go away anytime soon. The council or the police are not going to put banning orders on traveller for entering the county or arrest them for busting a lock or even for trespass or illegal encampment, it's just not going to happen. This site, out of all the sites we've seen the travellers turn up on is the most suitable for a pragmatic, realistic approach. The travellers will move on after the steamfair, they don't actually live in caravans all year round we all know this. You lot can all sit there posting the same tired old comments time and time again until you are blue in the face, or you can accept things are not going to change overnight and this is the best out of a selection of not very great options.[/p][/quote]You obviously have not read all stories and accompanying posts. If you had you will have read that no camp site will do. They will move on as soon as another group telephones and tell them that there is a better site elsewhere. They do not like authority or being organised. They will move when they ate ready. Who is going to stop them. No one. Poole Council is living in hope.[/p][/quote]No I've not read the 100+ comments that appear on every story about travellers, i've actually got better things to do. However, this I do know.... This is the first instance whereby the council have stated they will NOT be looking to actively remove the travellers with a court order. This is the first time the travellers have been told 'you can stay until this date' without the threat of court action. As you said, the travellers move on, but usually it's due to the threat of legal action. This is a unique situation and I think the most sensible approach has been taken because a) it costs money to remove them and b) they will go anyway if they want to so why not try to keep them on what is actually a remote site that isn't a park or open space used by the public.[/p][/quote]Tell that to those in the houses opposite the park and ride![/p][/quote]Yes there are 16 families living opposite the park and ride having their sleep interrupted by generators going all night and barking dogs. But hey, who cares . Those people don't matter so long as no-one else gets their sleep interrupted. Anyone who thinks it's isolated has not been anywhere near it. That's one of the problems with some comments - the writers don't bother to check the facts before posting.[/p][/quote]I didn't say it was a perfect solution. I said it was probably the best option out of a short list of bad options. Again, as I said, this situation is simply not going to change anytime soon, I feel for those families but the council have made a decision, to try and contain rather than chasing them all over the borough, spending time snd money on court orders and clean ups. Yes, it would be great if we could amend the terms of the Court order banning them from the county for 12 months - not going to happen. Yes it would be great if we could sieze the vehicles but it's not goung to happen. One day things might be different, one day common sense may prevail and a change in the definition of 'traveller' might be made. But it's not going to happen anytime soon....... boardsandphotos
  • Score: -1

6:55pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Carolyn43 says...

breamoreboy wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
What does the sign say on the gate;

NO UNAUTHORISED ENTRY

Yet, they broke in forcing an unauthorised entry. Poole Council, you cannot put a sign in place saying one thing, then allowing it to be broken. Think of the chaos if we all broke the law by disobeying signs. Here is one for the travellers: V
Mr Churchill made that famous, V for Victory. Sadly there's only one winner here. Any guesses?
V for victory is with the palm outwards. That wasn't how breamoreboy was making the sign and you know it.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: What does the sign say on the gate; NO UNAUTHORISED ENTRY Yet, they broke in forcing an unauthorised entry. Poole Council, you cannot put a sign in place saying one thing, then allowing it to be broken. Think of the chaos if we all broke the law by disobeying signs. Here is one for the travellers: V[/p][/quote]Mr Churchill made that famous, V for Victory. Sadly there's only one winner here. Any guesses?[/p][/quote]V for victory is with the palm outwards. That wasn't how breamoreboy was making the sign and you know it. Carolyn43
  • Score: 0

6:58pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Carolyn43 says...

FuturePM wrote:
And I think we should also remember those councillors in 2015....

I am often minded to stand as an independent in Creekmoor ward... we are not having our voices heard.
You'd need to check the history of the site and the facts before standing. And do you really think one independent voice would be listened to? The three existing councillors working together aren't, so one person stands no chance.
[quote][p][bold]FuturePM[/bold] wrote: And I think we should also remember those councillors in 2015.... I am often minded to stand as an independent in Creekmoor ward... we are not having our voices heard.[/p][/quote]You'd need to check the history of the site and the facts before standing. And do you really think one independent voice would be listened to? The three existing councillors working together aren't, so one person stands no chance. Carolyn43
  • Score: -1

7:02pm Thu 14 Aug 14

FuturePM says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
FuturePM wrote:
And one final point; why is the park and ride such a monstrosity? It should not be there anymore. If they are going to do anything with it; change it in to a mini store like the Tesco up on Ringwood road or something. It is just land that is sat there and absolutely pointlessly left untouched. I know the Lib Dems really wanted it but its been a total waste of time. If there is not going to be shops there then turn it in to housing land.
I notice my posts have been removed too. Seems the only ones allowed are those who say Creekmoor residents should have to put up with the travellers so they don't get them near where they live. I bet many of them have never even seen where the park and ride is - opposite 16 homes.

Future PM, I assume you are aware that a grant from the Department of Transport was accepted to build the park and ride for transport purposes only. Even the council weren't sure if they could legally put in larger bays for legitimate visitors with motor homes using the park and ride as a park and ride.

Now watch this get removed.
Carolyn,

I understand the reasons the grant was given, but just because it was a grant; the idea has failed and it should not be left as it is. Such a waste of a large plot of land.

Poole does not have the businesses in and around it to necessitate the park and ride.
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FuturePM[/bold] wrote: And one final point; why is the park and ride such a monstrosity? It should not be there anymore. If they are going to do anything with it; change it in to a mini store like the Tesco up on Ringwood road or something. It is just land that is sat there and absolutely pointlessly left untouched. I know the Lib Dems really wanted it but its been a total waste of time. If there is not going to be shops there then turn it in to housing land.[/p][/quote]I notice my posts have been removed too. Seems the only ones allowed are those who say Creekmoor residents should have to put up with the travellers so they don't get them near where they live. I bet many of them have never even seen where the park and ride is - opposite 16 homes. Future PM, I assume you are aware that a grant from the Department of Transport was accepted to build the park and ride for transport purposes only. Even the council weren't sure if they could legally put in larger bays for legitimate visitors with motor homes using the park and ride as a park and ride. Now watch this get removed.[/p][/quote]Carolyn, I understand the reasons the grant was given, but just because it was a grant; the idea has failed and it should not be left as it is. Such a waste of a large plot of land. Poole does not have the businesses in and around it to necessitate the park and ride. FuturePM
  • Score: -2

7:06pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Carolyn43 says...

This is copied from my post on another article and is bound to be removed:

Since I've lived here there has been:

A failed park and ride, the failure of which was obvious from the outset to anyone with half a brain.

Plans to allow a commercial company to put a giant (and I mean giant) stainless steel pyramid on Baiter, which happily was stopped before it got to planning by weight of objections from the public. Even for that the council wined and dined the commercial company when it should have been the other way round.

Surveillance intended for terrorism was used to check if a family lived in a school catchment area.

A lifting bridge that is pretty but frequently needs repairs.

A disastrous gyratory road system off the new bridge.

Silly short lengths of cycle paths which are added up to meet government requirements.

Two unsuitable sites planned for TSPs which would only cater for 16 travellers, when there have been 30 or more this year. Where would the rest go?

Local councillors being told they should not represent their residents as they were elected to do, but to toe the party line instead.

A mayor who didn’t remain impartial as he should have done.


And they're just the things which spring immediately to mind.

This council would be good at organising childrens' parties. They like clowns.
This is copied from my post on another article and is bound to be removed: Since I've lived here there has been: A failed park and ride, the failure of which was obvious from the outset to anyone with half a brain. Plans to allow a commercial company to put a giant (and I mean giant) stainless steel pyramid on Baiter, which happily was stopped before it got to planning by weight of objections from the public. Even for that the council wined and dined the commercial company when it should have been the other way round. Surveillance intended for terrorism was used to check if a family lived in a school catchment area. A lifting bridge that is pretty but frequently needs repairs. A disastrous gyratory road system off the new bridge. Silly short lengths of cycle paths which are added up to meet government requirements. Two unsuitable sites planned for TSPs which would only cater for 16 travellers, when there have been 30 or more this year. Where would the rest go? Local councillors being told they should not represent their residents as they were elected to do, but to toe the party line instead. A mayor who didn’t remain impartial as he should have done. And they're just the things which spring immediately to mind. This council would be good at organising childrens' parties. They like clowns. Carolyn43
  • Score: 3

7:09pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Carolyn43 says...

FuturePM wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
FuturePM wrote:
And one final point; why is the park and ride such a monstrosity? It should not be there anymore. If they are going to do anything with it; change it in to a mini store like the Tesco up on Ringwood road or something. It is just land that is sat there and absolutely pointlessly left untouched. I know the Lib Dems really wanted it but its been a total waste of time. If there is not going to be shops there then turn it in to housing land.
I notice my posts have been removed too. Seems the only ones allowed are those who say Creekmoor residents should have to put up with the travellers so they don't get them near where they live. I bet many of them have never even seen where the park and ride is - opposite 16 homes.

Future PM, I assume you are aware that a grant from the Department of Transport was accepted to build the park and ride for transport purposes only. Even the council weren't sure if they could legally put in larger bays for legitimate visitors with motor homes using the park and ride as a park and ride.

Now watch this get removed.
Carolyn,

I understand the reasons the grant was given, but just because it was a grant; the idea has failed and it should not be left as it is. Such a waste of a large plot of land.

Poole does not have the businesses in and around it to necessitate the park and ride.
We know that, but the council didn't. I'd like to know if the conditions of the grant still apply. If they do and the council is acting illegally in using it for travellers, it could cost us council tax payers dear.

I suspect my last post will not only be removed, but I'll be banned.
[quote][p][bold]FuturePM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FuturePM[/bold] wrote: And one final point; why is the park and ride such a monstrosity? It should not be there anymore. If they are going to do anything with it; change it in to a mini store like the Tesco up on Ringwood road or something. It is just land that is sat there and absolutely pointlessly left untouched. I know the Lib Dems really wanted it but its been a total waste of time. If there is not going to be shops there then turn it in to housing land.[/p][/quote]I notice my posts have been removed too. Seems the only ones allowed are those who say Creekmoor residents should have to put up with the travellers so they don't get them near where they live. I bet many of them have never even seen where the park and ride is - opposite 16 homes. Future PM, I assume you are aware that a grant from the Department of Transport was accepted to build the park and ride for transport purposes only. Even the council weren't sure if they could legally put in larger bays for legitimate visitors with motor homes using the park and ride as a park and ride. Now watch this get removed.[/p][/quote]Carolyn, I understand the reasons the grant was given, but just because it was a grant; the idea has failed and it should not be left as it is. Such a waste of a large plot of land. Poole does not have the businesses in and around it to necessitate the park and ride.[/p][/quote]We know that, but the council didn't. I'd like to know if the conditions of the grant still apply. If they do and the council is acting illegally in using it for travellers, it could cost us council tax payers dear. I suspect my last post will not only be removed, but I'll be banned. Carolyn43
  • Score: 2

7:10pm Thu 14 Aug 14

DiggerRuss says...

boardsandphotos wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
DiggerRuss wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
BigAlfromsunnyBourne






mouth
wrote:
I know this is an unpopular view, but I think Poole Council have got this correct, they have adopted a sensible and pragmatic approach in allowing them to stay on the Creekmoor park and ride site, but there really is nowhere else that is suitable.

Yes it's unpopular with Creekmoor residents but if you actually look at the site dispassionately, it's very isolated, surrounded on one side by the A350 dual carriageway to the Baker's Arms, and on the other side by the A35 Upton Road from the Creekmoor roundabout towards Upton Country Park, both very busy roads. It's remote from local housing and there are only two entrances to the site making entrance and exit easily controlled.

The only thing I think the council have got wrong is that they aren't covering their costs by charging these freeloading holidaymakers a suitable fee.
You beat me to it.

The fact of the matter is this problem isn't going to go away anytime soon. The council or the police are not going to put banning orders on traveller for entering the county or arrest them for busting a lock or even for trespass or illegal encampment, it's just not going to happen.

This site, out of all the sites we've seen the travellers turn up on is the most suitable for a pragmatic, realistic approach.

The travellers will move on after the steamfair, they don't actually live in caravans all year round we all know this.

You lot can all sit there posting the same tired old comments time and time again until you are blue in the face, or you can accept things are not going to change overnight and this is the best out of a selection of not very great options.
You obviously have not read all stories and accompanying posts. If you had you will have read that no camp site will do. They will move on as soon as another group telephones and tell them that there is a better site elsewhere. They do not like authority or being organised. They will move when they ate ready. Who is going to stop them. No one. Poole Council is living in hope.
No I've not read the 100+ comments that appear on every story about travellers, i've actually got better things to do.

However, this I do know....

This is the first instance whereby the council have stated they will NOT be looking to actively remove the travellers with a court order. This is the first time the travellers have been told 'you can stay until this date' without the threat of court action.

As you said, the travellers move on, but usually it's due to the threat of legal action.

This is a unique situation and I think the most sensible approach has been taken because a) it costs money to remove them and b) they will go anyway if they want to so why not try to keep them on what is actually a remote site that isn't a park or open space used by the public.
Tell that to those in the houses opposite the park and ride!
Yes there are 16 families living opposite the park and ride having their sleep interrupted by generators going all night and barking dogs. But hey, who cares . Those people don't matter so long as no-one else gets their sleep interrupted.

Anyone who thinks it's isolated has not been anywhere near it. That's one of the problems with some comments - the writers don't bother to check the facts before posting.
I didn't say it was a perfect solution.

I said it was probably the best option out of a short list of bad options.

Again, as I said, this situation is simply not going to change anytime soon, I feel for those families but the council have made a decision, to try and contain rather than chasing them all over the borough, spending time snd money on court orders and clean ups.

Yes, it would be great if we could amend the terms of the Court order banning them from the county for 12 months - not going to happen.

Yes it would be great if we could sieze the vehicles but it's not goung to happen.

One day things might be different, one day common sense may prevail and a change in the definition of 'traveller' might be made.

But it's not going to happen anytime soon.......
How is it the best option out of a short list. Some of those caravans are only 30 metres from those houses despite being asked to move away. You wouldn't be this sympathetic if they were that close to you running generators all night! I wish people would think about those affected and stop saying this is the best option. They were not this close to houses on other sites with the exception of sterte and you saw how the travellers treated them.
[quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DiggerRuss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigAlfromsunnyBourne mouth[/bold] wrote: I know this is an unpopular view, but I think Poole Council have got this correct, they have adopted a sensible and pragmatic approach in allowing them to stay on the Creekmoor park and ride site, but there really is nowhere else that is suitable. Yes it's unpopular with Creekmoor residents but if you actually look at the site dispassionately, it's very isolated, surrounded on one side by the A350 dual carriageway to the Baker's Arms, and on the other side by the A35 Upton Road from the Creekmoor roundabout towards Upton Country Park, both very busy roads. It's remote from local housing and there are only two entrances to the site making entrance and exit easily controlled. The only thing I think the council have got wrong is that they aren't covering their costs by charging these freeloading holidaymakers a suitable fee.[/p][/quote]You beat me to it. The fact of the matter is this problem isn't going to go away anytime soon. The council or the police are not going to put banning orders on traveller for entering the county or arrest them for busting a lock or even for trespass or illegal encampment, it's just not going to happen. This site, out of all the sites we've seen the travellers turn up on is the most suitable for a pragmatic, realistic approach. The travellers will move on after the steamfair, they don't actually live in caravans all year round we all know this. You lot can all sit there posting the same tired old comments time and time again until you are blue in the face, or you can accept things are not going to change overnight and this is the best out of a selection of not very great options.[/p][/quote]You obviously have not read all stories and accompanying posts. If you had you will have read that no camp site will do. They will move on as soon as another group telephones and tell them that there is a better site elsewhere. They do not like authority or being organised. They will move when they ate ready. Who is going to stop them. No one. Poole Council is living in hope.[/p][/quote]No I've not read the 100+ comments that appear on every story about travellers, i've actually got better things to do. However, this I do know.... This is the first instance whereby the council have stated they will NOT be looking to actively remove the travellers with a court order. This is the first time the travellers have been told 'you can stay until this date' without the threat of court action. As you said, the travellers move on, but usually it's due to the threat of legal action. This is a unique situation and I think the most sensible approach has been taken because a) it costs money to remove them and b) they will go anyway if they want to so why not try to keep them on what is actually a remote site that isn't a park or open space used by the public.[/p][/quote]Tell that to those in the houses opposite the park and ride![/p][/quote]Yes there are 16 families living opposite the park and ride having their sleep interrupted by generators going all night and barking dogs. But hey, who cares . Those people don't matter so long as no-one else gets their sleep interrupted. Anyone who thinks it's isolated has not been anywhere near it. That's one of the problems with some comments - the writers don't bother to check the facts before posting.[/p][/quote]I didn't say it was a perfect solution. I said it was probably the best option out of a short list of bad options. Again, as I said, this situation is simply not going to change anytime soon, I feel for those families but the council have made a decision, to try and contain rather than chasing them all over the borough, spending time snd money on court orders and clean ups. Yes, it would be great if we could amend the terms of the Court order banning them from the county for 12 months - not going to happen. Yes it would be great if we could sieze the vehicles but it's not goung to happen. One day things might be different, one day common sense may prevail and a change in the definition of 'traveller' might be made. But it's not going to happen anytime soon.......[/p][/quote]How is it the best option out of a short list. Some of those caravans are only 30 metres from those houses despite being asked to move away. You wouldn't be this sympathetic if they were that close to you running generators all night! I wish people would think about those affected and stop saying this is the best option. They were not this close to houses on other sites with the exception of sterte and you saw how the travellers treated them. DiggerRuss
  • Score: 3

7:22pm Thu 14 Aug 14

BigAlfromsunnyBournemouth says...

Carolyn43 says...I suspect my last post will not only be removed, but I'll be banned.

Your posts will not have been removed, it's just that there are so many "travellers" threads you have simply lost track of where they are.
Carolyn43 says...I suspect my last post will not only be removed, but I'll be banned. Your posts will not have been removed, it's just that there are so many "travellers" threads you have simply lost track of where they are. BigAlfromsunnyBournemouth
  • Score: 0

7:28pm Thu 14 Aug 14

boardsandphotos says...

DiggerRuss wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
DiggerRuss wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
BigAlfromsunnyBourne







mouth
wrote:
I know this is an unpopular view, but I think Poole Council have got this correct, they have adopted a sensible and pragmatic approach in allowing them to stay on the Creekmoor park and ride site, but there really is nowhere else that is suitable.

Yes it's unpopular with Creekmoor residents but if you actually look at the site dispassionately, it's very isolated, surrounded on one side by the A350 dual carriageway to the Baker's Arms, and on the other side by the A35 Upton Road from the Creekmoor roundabout towards Upton Country Park, both very busy roads. It's remote from local housing and there are only two entrances to the site making entrance and exit easily controlled.

The only thing I think the council have got wrong is that they aren't covering their costs by charging these freeloading holidaymakers a suitable fee.
You beat me to it.

The fact of the matter is this problem isn't going to go away anytime soon. The council or the police are not going to put banning orders on traveller for entering the county or arrest them for busting a lock or even for trespass or illegal encampment, it's just not going to happen.

This site, out of all the sites we've seen the travellers turn up on is the most suitable for a pragmatic, realistic approach.

The travellers will move on after the steamfair, they don't actually live in caravans all year round we all know this.

You lot can all sit there posting the same tired old comments time and time again until you are blue in the face, or you can accept things are not going to change overnight and this is the best out of a selection of not very great options.
You obviously have not read all stories and accompanying posts. If you had you will have read that no camp site will do. They will move on as soon as another group telephones and tell them that there is a better site elsewhere. They do not like authority or being organised. They will move when they ate ready. Who is going to stop them. No one. Poole Council is living in hope.
No I've not read the 100+ comments that appear on every story about travellers, i've actually got better things to do.

However, this I do know....

This is the first instance whereby the council have stated they will NOT be looking to actively remove the travellers with a court order. This is the first time the travellers have been told 'you can stay until this date' without the threat of court action.

As you said, the travellers move on, but usually it's due to the threat of legal action.

This is a unique situation and I think the most sensible approach has been taken because a) it costs money to remove them and b) they will go anyway if they want to so why not try to keep them on what is actually a remote site that isn't a park or open space used by the public.
Tell that to those in the houses opposite the park and ride!
Yes there are 16 families living opposite the park and ride having their sleep interrupted by generators going all night and barking dogs. But hey, who cares . Those people don't matter so long as no-one else gets their sleep interrupted.

Anyone who thinks it's isolated has not been anywhere near it. That's one of the problems with some comments - the writers don't bother to check the facts before posting.
I didn't say it was a perfect solution.

I said it was probably the best option out of a short list of bad options.

Again, as I said, this situation is simply not going to change anytime soon, I feel for those families but the council have made a decision, to try and contain rather than chasing them all over the borough, spending time snd money on court orders and clean ups.

Yes, it would be great if we could amend the terms of the Court order banning them from the county for 12 months - not going to happen.

Yes it would be great if we could sieze the vehicles but it's not goung to happen.

One day things might be different, one day common sense may prevail and a change in the definition of 'traveller' might be made.

But it's not going to happen anytime soon.......
How is it the best option out of a short list. Some of those caravans are only 30 metres from those houses despite being asked to move away. You wouldn't be this sympathetic if they were that close to you running generators all night! I wish people would think about those affected and stop saying this is the best option. They were not this close to houses on other sites with the exception of sterte and you saw how the travellers treated them.
Would I be happy about it? No I wouldn't.

Do I have an alternative solution to put forward other than 'move them on' (which will be to another open space in the borough) - no I don't have a suggestion.

So please, what's your plan? What's your suggestion? Which alternative plot of land would you move them to?

As I said, as it stands there aren't many options, this isn't a great one but none of us have any sensible, rational suggsstions.

We'd all like the rules, laws and definitions to be different but they are not so unless you have some suggestions we're stuck with what we have.
[quote][p][bold]DiggerRuss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DiggerRuss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigAlfromsunnyBourne mouth[/bold] wrote: I know this is an unpopular view, but I think Poole Council have got this correct, they have adopted a sensible and pragmatic approach in allowing them to stay on the Creekmoor park and ride site, but there really is nowhere else that is suitable. Yes it's unpopular with Creekmoor residents but if you actually look at the site dispassionately, it's very isolated, surrounded on one side by the A350 dual carriageway to the Baker's Arms, and on the other side by the A35 Upton Road from the Creekmoor roundabout towards Upton Country Park, both very busy roads. It's remote from local housing and there are only two entrances to the site making entrance and exit easily controlled. The only thing I think the council have got wrong is that they aren't covering their costs by charging these freeloading holidaymakers a suitable fee.[/p][/quote]You beat me to it. The fact of the matter is this problem isn't going to go away anytime soon. The council or the police are not going to put banning orders on traveller for entering the county or arrest them for busting a lock or even for trespass or illegal encampment, it's just not going to happen. This site, out of all the sites we've seen the travellers turn up on is the most suitable for a pragmatic, realistic approach. The travellers will move on after the steamfair, they don't actually live in caravans all year round we all know this. You lot can all sit there posting the same tired old comments time and time again until you are blue in the face, or you can accept things are not going to change overnight and this is the best out of a selection of not very great options.[/p][/quote]You obviously have not read all stories and accompanying posts. If you had you will have read that no camp site will do. They will move on as soon as another group telephones and tell them that there is a better site elsewhere. They do not like authority or being organised. They will move when they ate ready. Who is going to stop them. No one. Poole Council is living in hope.[/p][/quote]No I've not read the 100+ comments that appear on every story about travellers, i've actually got better things to do. However, this I do know.... This is the first instance whereby the council have stated they will NOT be looking to actively remove the travellers with a court order. This is the first time the travellers have been told 'you can stay until this date' without the threat of court action. As you said, the travellers move on, but usually it's due to the threat of legal action. This is a unique situation and I think the most sensible approach has been taken because a) it costs money to remove them and b) they will go anyway if they want to so why not try to keep them on what is actually a remote site that isn't a park or open space used by the public.[/p][/quote]Tell that to those in the houses opposite the park and ride![/p][/quote]Yes there are 16 families living opposite the park and ride having their sleep interrupted by generators going all night and barking dogs. But hey, who cares . Those people don't matter so long as no-one else gets their sleep interrupted. Anyone who thinks it's isolated has not been anywhere near it. That's one of the problems with some comments - the writers don't bother to check the facts before posting.[/p][/quote]I didn't say it was a perfect solution. I said it was probably the best option out of a short list of bad options. Again, as I said, this situation is simply not going to change anytime soon, I feel for those families but the council have made a decision, to try and contain rather than chasing them all over the borough, spending time snd money on court orders and clean ups. Yes, it would be great if we could amend the terms of the Court order banning them from the county for 12 months - not going to happen. Yes it would be great if we could sieze the vehicles but it's not goung to happen. One day things might be different, one day common sense may prevail and a change in the definition of 'traveller' might be made. But it's not going to happen anytime soon.......[/p][/quote]How is it the best option out of a short list. Some of those caravans are only 30 metres from those houses despite being asked to move away. You wouldn't be this sympathetic if they were that close to you running generators all night! I wish people would think about those affected and stop saying this is the best option. They were not this close to houses on other sites with the exception of sterte and you saw how the travellers treated them.[/p][/quote]Would I be happy about it? No I wouldn't. Do I have an alternative solution to put forward other than 'move them on' (which will be to another open space in the borough) - no I don't have a suggestion. So please, what's your plan? What's your suggestion? Which alternative plot of land would you move them to? As I said, as it stands there aren't many options, this isn't a great one but none of us have any sensible, rational suggsstions. We'd all like the rules, laws and definitions to be different but they are not so unless you have some suggestions we're stuck with what we have. boardsandphotos
  • Score: 2

7:32pm Thu 14 Aug 14

cromwell9 says...

Looks like Poole council are going to apply ,to turn this failed Lib Dem Park a Ride site,and turn it into a future Travellers sight..
There is know more to say ,IS THERE ?.
Looks like Poole council are going to apply ,to turn this failed Lib Dem Park a Ride site,and turn it into a future Travellers sight.. There is know more to say ,IS THERE ?. cromwell9
  • Score: 0

7:34pm Thu 14 Aug 14

DiggerRuss says...

boardsandphotos wrote:
DiggerRuss wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
DiggerRuss wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
BigAlfromsunnyBourne








mouth
wrote:
I know this is an unpopular view, but I think Poole Council have got this correct, they have adopted a sensible and pragmatic approach in allowing them to stay on the Creekmoor park and ride site, but there really is nowhere else that is suitable.

Yes it's unpopular with Creekmoor residents but if you actually look at the site dispassionately, it's very isolated, surrounded on one side by the A350 dual carriageway to the Baker's Arms, and on the other side by the A35 Upton Road from the Creekmoor roundabout towards Upton Country Park, both very busy roads. It's remote from local housing and there are only two entrances to the site making entrance and exit easily controlled.

The only thing I think the council have got wrong is that they aren't covering their costs by charging these freeloading holidaymakers a suitable fee.
You beat me to it.

The fact of the matter is this problem isn't going to go away anytime soon. The council or the police are not going to put banning orders on traveller for entering the county or arrest them for busting a lock or even for trespass or illegal encampment, it's just not going to happen.

This site, out of all the sites we've seen the travellers turn up on is the most suitable for a pragmatic, realistic approach.

The travellers will move on after the steamfair, they don't actually live in caravans all year round we all know this.

You lot can all sit there posting the same tired old comments time and time again until you are blue in the face, or you can accept things are not going to change overnight and this is the best out of a selection of not very great options.
You obviously have not read all stories and accompanying posts. If you had you will have read that no camp site will do. They will move on as soon as another group telephones and tell them that there is a better site elsewhere. They do not like authority or being organised. They will move when they ate ready. Who is going to stop them. No one. Poole Council is living in hope.
No I've not read the 100+ comments that appear on every story about travellers, i've actually got better things to do.

However, this I do know....

This is the first instance whereby the council have stated they will NOT be looking to actively remove the travellers with a court order. This is the first time the travellers have been told 'you can stay until this date' without the threat of court action.

As you said, the travellers move on, but usually it's due to the threat of legal action.

This is a unique situation and I think the most sensible approach has been taken because a) it costs money to remove them and b) they will go anyway if they want to so why not try to keep them on what is actually a remote site that isn't a park or open space used by the public.
Tell that to those in the houses opposite the park and ride!
Yes there are 16 families living opposite the park and ride having their sleep interrupted by generators going all night and barking dogs. But hey, who cares . Those people don't matter so long as no-one else gets their sleep interrupted.

Anyone who thinks it's isolated has not been anywhere near it. That's one of the problems with some comments - the writers don't bother to check the facts before posting.
I didn't say it was a perfect solution.

I said it was probably the best option out of a short list of bad options.

Again, as I said, this situation is simply not going to change anytime soon, I feel for those families but the council have made a decision, to try and contain rather than chasing them all over the borough, spending time snd money on court orders and clean ups.

Yes, it would be great if we could amend the terms of the Court order banning them from the county for 12 months - not going to happen.

Yes it would be great if we could sieze the vehicles but it's not goung to happen.

One day things might be different, one day common sense may prevail and a change in the definition of 'traveller' might be made.

But it's not going to happen anytime soon.......
How is it the best option out of a short list. Some of those caravans are only 30 metres from those houses despite being asked to move away. You wouldn't be this sympathetic if they were that close to you running generators all night! I wish people would think about those affected and stop saying this is the best option. They were not this close to houses on other sites with the exception of sterte and you saw how the travellers treated them.
Would I be happy about it? No I wouldn't.

Do I have an alternative solution to put forward other than 'move them on' (which will be to another open space in the borough) - no I don't have a suggestion.

So please, what's your plan? What's your suggestion? Which alternative plot of land would you move them to?

As I said, as it stands there aren't many options, this isn't a great one but none of us have any sensible, rational suggsstions.

We'd all like the rules, laws and definitions to be different but they are not so unless you have some suggestions we're stuck with what we have.
We are not stuck with what we have! Sympathisers like yourself saying " this is the only option" are giving credibility to a council decision to make 16 families suffer. The council and police do have options but choose to let them win. So what if they move to other sites, the council should be moving them on quicker than they do. Look at how they treated those at sterte, they damaged a car, assaulted someone, then laughed at them after the police did nothing.

If your happy with them there how's about we all start a fund and give those families a 2 week holiday and you house sit for them. You will change your tune then after 2 weeks!
[quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DiggerRuss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DiggerRuss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigAlfromsunnyBourne mouth[/bold] wrote: I know this is an unpopular view, but I think Poole Council have got this correct, they have adopted a sensible and pragmatic approach in allowing them to stay on the Creekmoor park and ride site, but there really is nowhere else that is suitable. Yes it's unpopular with Creekmoor residents but if you actually look at the site dispassionately, it's very isolated, surrounded on one side by the A350 dual carriageway to the Baker's Arms, and on the other side by the A35 Upton Road from the Creekmoor roundabout towards Upton Country Park, both very busy roads. It's remote from local housing and there are only two entrances to the site making entrance and exit easily controlled. The only thing I think the council have got wrong is that they aren't covering their costs by charging these freeloading holidaymakers a suitable fee.[/p][/quote]You beat me to it. The fact of the matter is this problem isn't going to go away anytime soon. The council or the police are not going to put banning orders on traveller for entering the county or arrest them for busting a lock or even for trespass or illegal encampment, it's just not going to happen. This site, out of all the sites we've seen the travellers turn up on is the most suitable for a pragmatic, realistic approach. The travellers will move on after the steamfair, they don't actually live in caravans all year round we all know this. You lot can all sit there posting the same tired old comments time and time again until you are blue in the face, or you can accept things are not going to change overnight and this is the best out of a selection of not very great options.[/p][/quote]You obviously have not read all stories and accompanying posts. If you had you will have read that no camp site will do. They will move on as soon as another group telephones and tell them that there is a better site elsewhere. They do not like authority or being organised. They will move when they ate ready. Who is going to stop them. No one. Poole Council is living in hope.[/p][/quote]No I've not read the 100+ comments that appear on every story about travellers, i've actually got better things to do. However, this I do know.... This is the first instance whereby the council have stated they will NOT be looking to actively remove the travellers with a court order. This is the first time the travellers have been told 'you can stay until this date' without the threat of court action. As you said, the travellers move on, but usually it's due to the threat of legal action. This is a unique situation and I think the most sensible approach has been taken because a) it costs money to remove them and b) they will go anyway if they want to so why not try to keep them on what is actually a remote site that isn't a park or open space used by the public.[/p][/quote]Tell that to those in the houses opposite the park and ride![/p][/quote]Yes there are 16 families living opposite the park and ride having their sleep interrupted by generators going all night and barking dogs. But hey, who cares . Those people don't matter so long as no-one else gets their sleep interrupted. Anyone who thinks it's isolated has not been anywhere near it. That's one of the problems with some comments - the writers don't bother to check the facts before posting.[/p][/quote]I didn't say it was a perfect solution. I said it was probably the best option out of a short list of bad options. Again, as I said, this situation is simply not going to change anytime soon, I feel for those families but the council have made a decision, to try and contain rather than chasing them all over the borough, spending time snd money on court orders and clean ups. Yes, it would be great if we could amend the terms of the Court order banning them from the county for 12 months - not going to happen. Yes it would be great if we could sieze the vehicles but it's not goung to happen. One day things might be different, one day common sense may prevail and a change in the definition of 'traveller' might be made. But it's not going to happen anytime soon.......[/p][/quote]How is it the best option out of a short list. Some of those caravans are only 30 metres from those houses despite being asked to move away. You wouldn't be this sympathetic if they were that close to you running generators all night! I wish people would think about those affected and stop saying this is the best option. They were not this close to houses on other sites with the exception of sterte and you saw how the travellers treated them.[/p][/quote]Would I be happy about it? No I wouldn't. Do I have an alternative solution to put forward other than 'move them on' (which will be to another open space in the borough) - no I don't have a suggestion. So please, what's your plan? What's your suggestion? Which alternative plot of land would you move them to? As I said, as it stands there aren't many options, this isn't a great one but none of us have any sensible, rational suggsstions. We'd all like the rules, laws and definitions to be different but they are not so unless you have some suggestions we're stuck with what we have.[/p][/quote]We are not stuck with what we have! Sympathisers like yourself saying " this is the only option" are giving credibility to a council decision to make 16 families suffer. The council and police do have options but choose to let them win. So what if they move to other sites, the council should be moving them on quicker than they do. Look at how they treated those at sterte, they damaged a car, assaulted someone, then laughed at them after the police did nothing. If your happy with them there how's about we all start a fund and give those families a 2 week holiday and you house sit for them. You will change your tune then after 2 weeks! DiggerRuss
  • Score: 2

7:50pm Thu 14 Aug 14

ShuttleX says...

And some on here wonder why I have nothing but contempt for Councillors. Don't forget, YOU voted the parasites in, so if you don't like what they are doing, Vote them out. Cllts Rampton and Butt have come to an agreement with Cllr Atkinson in the usual behind closed doors way of the Council. So when they make statements condemning the Councils move, they are being their usual two faced selves. Creekmoor residents will be led to believe that Rampton and Butt are on their side, but that's not the truth. Just a ploy to keep on the gravy train.
And some on here wonder why I have nothing but contempt for Councillors. Don't forget, YOU voted the parasites in, so if you don't like what they are doing, Vote them out. Cllts Rampton and Butt have come to an agreement with Cllr Atkinson in the usual behind closed doors way of the Council. So when they make statements condemning the Councils move, they are being their usual two faced selves. Creekmoor residents will be led to believe that Rampton and Butt are on their side, but that's not the truth. Just a ploy to keep on the gravy train. ShuttleX
  • Score: -3

7:55pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Carolyn43 says...

BigAlfromsunnyBourne
mouth
wrote:
Carolyn43 says...I suspect my last post will not only be removed, but I'll be banned.

Your posts will not have been removed, it's just that there are so many "travellers" threads you have simply lost track of where they are.
No I haven't. I'm organised and keep a list.
[quote][p][bold]BigAlfromsunnyBourne mouth[/bold] wrote: Carolyn43 says...I suspect my last post will not only be removed, but I'll be banned. Your posts will not have been removed, it's just that there are so many "travellers" threads you have simply lost track of where they are.[/p][/quote]No I haven't. I'm organised and keep a list. Carolyn43
  • Score: 0

8:00pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Carolyn43 says...

ShuttleX wrote:
And some on here wonder why I have nothing but contempt for Councillors. Don't forget, YOU voted the parasites in, so if you don't like what they are doing, Vote them out. Cllts Rampton and Butt have come to an agreement with Cllr Atkinson in the usual behind closed doors way of the Council. So when they make statements condemning the Councils move, they are being their usual two faced selves. Creekmoor residents will be led to believe that Rampton and Butt are on their side, but that's not the truth. Just a ploy to keep on the gravy train.
Yes, that's why Judy Butt was removed by Atkinson from her portfolio holder post and told that she should toe the party line and not represent the residents who had voted her in.

In this case it look like Shaun Robson (unelected council officer) is the one calling the shots. Do hope he's checked the legality of what he's doing.
[quote][p][bold]ShuttleX[/bold] wrote: And some on here wonder why I have nothing but contempt for Councillors. Don't forget, YOU voted the parasites in, so if you don't like what they are doing, Vote them out. Cllts Rampton and Butt have come to an agreement with Cllr Atkinson in the usual behind closed doors way of the Council. So when they make statements condemning the Councils move, they are being their usual two faced selves. Creekmoor residents will be led to believe that Rampton and Butt are on their side, but that's not the truth. Just a ploy to keep on the gravy train.[/p][/quote]Yes, that's why Judy Butt was removed by Atkinson from her portfolio holder post and told that she should toe the party line and not represent the residents who had voted her in. In this case it look like Shaun Robson (unelected council officer) is the one calling the shots. Do hope he's checked the legality of what he's doing. Carolyn43
  • Score: 3

8:04pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Desperado says...

Can anyone answer this for me .
These people (I use the term loosely) so called travellers, I understand they are a protected species .
So does that mean the law can't touch them what ever they do ?
We know the law has done nothing yet, re breaking and entering , Parking in car parks without paying, leaving rubbish where ever they please, the list is endless .
Would the police be interested if they had firearms ?
Would the law take action .
Or do they just have diplomatic immunity ??????
Can anyone answer this for me . These people (I use the term loosely) so called travellers, I understand they are a protected species . So does that mean the law can't touch them what ever they do ? We know the law has done nothing yet, re breaking and entering , Parking in car parks without paying, leaving rubbish where ever they please, the list is endless . Would the police be interested if they had firearms ? Would the law take action . Or do they just have diplomatic immunity ?????? Desperado
  • Score: 1

8:19pm Thu 14 Aug 14

FuturePM says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
FuturePM wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
FuturePM wrote:
And one final point; why is the park and ride such a monstrosity? It should not be there anymore. If they are going to do anything with it; change it in to a mini store like the Tesco up on Ringwood road or something. It is just land that is sat there and absolutely pointlessly left untouched. I know the Lib Dems really wanted it but its been a total waste of time. If there is not going to be shops there then turn it in to housing land.
I notice my posts have been removed too. Seems the only ones allowed are those who say Creekmoor residents should have to put up with the travellers so they don't get them near where they live. I bet many of them have never even seen where the park and ride is - opposite 16 homes.

Future PM, I assume you are aware that a grant from the Department of Transport was accepted to build the park and ride for transport purposes only. Even the council weren't sure if they could legally put in larger bays for legitimate visitors with motor homes using the park and ride as a park and ride.

Now watch this get removed.
Carolyn,

I understand the reasons the grant was given, but just because it was a grant; the idea has failed and it should not be left as it is. Such a waste of a large plot of land.

Poole does not have the businesses in and around it to necessitate the park and ride.
We know that, but the council didn't. I'd like to know if the conditions of the grant still apply. If they do and the council is acting illegally in using it for travellers, it could cost us council tax payers dear.

I suspect my last post will not only be removed, but I'll be banned.
I do not think you will be banned for giving a your opinion. As long as it is not prejudice against peoples race which it is not.

What is shocking me is the councillors are showing a bit of contempt to the good residents of Creekmoor. If it is not this issue it is the absolute lacklustre approach to the local image of the village. They have allowed the grass in the public highways all around to overgrow and become unsightly. The approach around the lakes for the bushes is to either leave them or completely cut them out from the root.

I read that they have left the grass on the side of the road to encourage pollination from bees. Whilst I do not know how true that is or if it is successful or not; we do not see any of our council taxes being cut. It gets very frustrating.
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FuturePM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FuturePM[/bold] wrote: And one final point; why is the park and ride such a monstrosity? It should not be there anymore. If they are going to do anything with it; change it in to a mini store like the Tesco up on Ringwood road or something. It is just land that is sat there and absolutely pointlessly left untouched. I know the Lib Dems really wanted it but its been a total waste of time. If there is not going to be shops there then turn it in to housing land.[/p][/quote]I notice my posts have been removed too. Seems the only ones allowed are those who say Creekmoor residents should have to put up with the travellers so they don't get them near where they live. I bet many of them have never even seen where the park and ride is - opposite 16 homes. Future PM, I assume you are aware that a grant from the Department of Transport was accepted to build the park and ride for transport purposes only. Even the council weren't sure if they could legally put in larger bays for legitimate visitors with motor homes using the park and ride as a park and ride. Now watch this get removed.[/p][/quote]Carolyn, I understand the reasons the grant was given, but just because it was a grant; the idea has failed and it should not be left as it is. Such a waste of a large plot of land. Poole does not have the businesses in and around it to necessitate the park and ride.[/p][/quote]We know that, but the council didn't. I'd like to know if the conditions of the grant still apply. If they do and the council is acting illegally in using it for travellers, it could cost us council tax payers dear. I suspect my last post will not only be removed, but I'll be banned.[/p][/quote]I do not think you will be banned for giving a your opinion. As long as it is not prejudice against peoples race which it is not. What is shocking me is the councillors are showing a bit of contempt to the good residents of Creekmoor. If it is not this issue it is the absolute lacklustre approach to the local image of the village. They have allowed the grass in the public highways all around to overgrow and become unsightly. The approach around the lakes for the bushes is to either leave them or completely cut them out from the root. I read that they have left the grass on the side of the road to encourage pollination from bees. Whilst I do not know how true that is or if it is successful or not; we do not see any of our council taxes being cut. It gets very frustrating. FuturePM
  • Score: -1

8:20pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Snobby66 says...

What's wrong with you lot??
These people need a home for gods sake!
Stop being Little Englanders and grow up
What's wrong with you lot?? These people need a home for gods sake! Stop being Little Englanders and grow up Snobby66
  • Score: 0

8:28pm Thu 14 Aug 14

FuturePM says...

Snobby66 wrote:
What's wrong with you lot??
These people need a home for gods sake!
Stop being Little Englanders and grow up
I do not think anyone is begrudging the travellers a home or a site to stay on. It is what is left behind on some sites that people are concerned with. Furthermore, we have spent a great deal of money on the park and ride site over the past 15 years or so and if it is not going to be used for what it was intended we should be developing the land and not leaving a giant empty car park there.
[quote][p][bold]Snobby66[/bold] wrote: What's wrong with you lot?? These people need a home for gods sake! Stop being Little Englanders and grow up[/p][/quote]I do not think anyone is begrudging the travellers a home or a site to stay on. It is what is left behind on some sites that people are concerned with. Furthermore, we have spent a great deal of money on the park and ride site over the past 15 years or so and if it is not going to be used for what it was intended we should be developing the land and not leaving a giant empty car park there. FuturePM
  • Score: 0

8:33pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Carolyn43 says...

FuturePM wrote:
Snobby66 wrote:
What's wrong with you lot??
These people need a home for gods sake!
Stop being Little Englanders and grow up
I do not think anyone is begrudging the travellers a home or a site to stay on. It is what is left behind on some sites that people are concerned with. Furthermore, we have spent a great deal of money on the park and ride site over the past 15 years or so and if it is not going to be used for what it was intended we should be developing the land and not leaving a giant empty car park there.
Snobby, they already have homes in Ireland, Liverpool and elsewhere. They're here for a free holiday and to earn a bit of extra money.

FuturePM, so you know the terms of the grant for the park and ride and the current legal position of what it can be used for now? Please enlighten us.
[quote][p][bold]FuturePM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Snobby66[/bold] wrote: What's wrong with you lot?? These people need a home for gods sake! Stop being Little Englanders and grow up[/p][/quote]I do not think anyone is begrudging the travellers a home or a site to stay on. It is what is left behind on some sites that people are concerned with. Furthermore, we have spent a great deal of money on the park and ride site over the past 15 years or so and if it is not going to be used for what it was intended we should be developing the land and not leaving a giant empty car park there.[/p][/quote]Snobby, they already have homes in Ireland, Liverpool and elsewhere. They're here for a free holiday and to earn a bit of extra money. FuturePM, so you know the terms of the grant for the park and ride and the current legal position of what it can be used for now? Please enlighten us. Carolyn43
  • Score: 6

9:20pm Thu 14 Aug 14

HRH of Boscombe says...

Wackerone wrote:
apm1954 wrote:
Elections 2015.
What about elections 2015? Can I assume that you're referring to local council elections. If you are, you'll probably see little or no change as 90% of wards are happy with their cllr's. Only in Creekmoor might you see change, but then again the problems are not the fault of those cllr's and their electorate might recognise that and reelect them.
UKIP! Out of the EU we will be able to deport these parasites.
[quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]apm1954[/bold] wrote: Elections 2015.[/p][/quote]What about elections 2015? Can I assume that you're referring to local council elections. If you are, you'll probably see little or no change as 90% of wards are happy with their cllr's. Only in Creekmoor might you see change, but then again the problems are not the fault of those cllr's and their electorate might recognise that and reelect them.[/p][/quote]UKIP! Out of the EU we will be able to deport these parasites. HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: 2

9:34pm Thu 14 Aug 14

i have heard it all now says...

Local Residents please use use the FREE of charge skips that are now in Creekmoor.

Hopefully the RAF can use this area for some practice bombing runs before the Airshow;
Local Residents please use use the FREE of charge skips that are now in Creekmoor. Hopefully the RAF can use this area for some practice bombing runs before the Airshow; i have heard it all now
  • Score: 2

12:23am Fri 15 Aug 14

wend32 says...

Snobby66 wrote:
What's wrong with you lot??
These people need a home for gods sake!
Stop being Little Englanders and grow up
are you stupid they have got homes they travel in there caravans during the summer only
[quote][p][bold]Snobby66[/bold] wrote: What's wrong with you lot?? These people need a home for gods sake! Stop being Little Englanders and grow up[/p][/quote]are you stupid they have got homes they travel in there caravans during the summer only wend32
  • Score: 1

1:13am Fri 15 Aug 14

Bmthman says...

Why is it we still have this problem when the Irish and French government solved this so easily and passed legislation, resulting in their caravans and vehicles being seized//
But the UK being a soft touch they have all come here!

Surely if you place yourself outside of the law or society by not contributing financially through taxation or following the laws of the land you are not entitled to the benefits or protection of the law or society?
Why is it we still have this problem when the Irish and French government solved this so easily and passed legislation, resulting in their caravans and vehicles being seized// But the UK being a soft touch they have all come here! Surely if you place yourself outside of the law or society by not contributing financially through taxation or following the laws of the land you are not entitled to the benefits or protection of the law or society? Bmthman
  • Score: 3

7:42am Fri 15 Aug 14

DansAFCB says...

Sounds to me like a deal has been struck. It makes me sick that these animals get away with this every year.
What it needs is for us the local taxpayer to stop paying our COUNCIL TAX. They live for free in our borough, so why should we pay. Also perhaps we should start parking where we want, register our vehicles to a PO Box number so avoid fines etc.... Maybe then this toothless good for nothing council will look up and listen to us the local residents! Time for change!!!!! In every aspect Inc the law for these blood sucking thieving IRISH and the COUNCIL.
Sounds to me like a deal has been struck. It makes me sick that these animals get away with this every year. What it needs is for us the local taxpayer to stop paying our COUNCIL TAX. They live for free in our borough, so why should we pay. Also perhaps we should start parking where we want, register our vehicles to a PO Box number so avoid fines etc.... Maybe then this toothless good for nothing council will look up and listen to us the local residents! Time for change!!!!! In every aspect Inc the law for these blood sucking thieving IRISH and the COUNCIL. DansAFCB
  • Score: 3

8:19am Fri 15 Aug 14

DiggerRuss says...

Go to google maps and look at Gordon road south, the car park behind the woods has no one over looking it and was one of 2 recommended sites in the independent survey. It Does not have 16 families within 30 metres!

However it is within councillor Eades ward, the same councillor who as mayor , an impartial position kept pushing creekmoor! Please look at the above site, I cannot see why this is any less suitable than the p and r which was ruled out 2 years ago.
Go to google maps and look at Gordon road south, the car park behind the woods has no one over looking it and was one of 2 recommended sites in the independent survey. It Does not have 16 families within 30 metres! However it is within councillor Eades ward, the same councillor who as mayor , an impartial position kept pushing creekmoor! Please look at the above site, I cannot see why this is any less suitable than the p and r which was ruled out 2 years ago. DiggerRuss
  • Score: 2

9:54am Fri 15 Aug 14

Wackerone says...

DiggerRuss wrote:
Go to google maps and look at Gordon road south, the car park behind the woods has no one over looking it and was one of 2 recommended sites in the independent survey. It Does not have 16 families within 30 metres!

However it is within councillor Eades ward, the same councillor who as mayor , an impartial position kept pushing creekmoor! Please look at the above site, I cannot see why this is any less suitable than the p and r which was ruled out 2 years ago.
Don't be stupid, it backs onto houses in Erpingham Road and Gordon Road South as well as houses at the entrance from a road that is at a standstill at certain times of the day. And where do you think that employees from LV are going to park? The whole area is choc a bloc now with their cars parked all over residential areas hence more and more yellow lines and parking restrictions in Branksome Park and Branksome. Engage brain before putting finger to keyboard.
[quote][p][bold]DiggerRuss[/bold] wrote: Go to google maps and look at Gordon road south, the car park behind the woods has no one over looking it and was one of 2 recommended sites in the independent survey. It Does not have 16 families within 30 metres! However it is within councillor Eades ward, the same councillor who as mayor , an impartial position kept pushing creekmoor! Please look at the above site, I cannot see why this is any less suitable than the p and r which was ruled out 2 years ago.[/p][/quote]Don't be stupid, it backs onto houses in Erpingham Road and Gordon Road South as well as houses at the entrance from a road that is at a standstill at certain times of the day. And where do you think that employees from LV are going to park? The whole area is choc a bloc now with their cars parked all over residential areas hence more and more yellow lines and parking restrictions in Branksome Park and Branksome. Engage brain before putting finger to keyboard. Wackerone
  • Score: -3

10:17am Fri 15 Aug 14

DiggerRuss says...

Wackerone wrote:
DiggerRuss wrote:
Go to google maps and look at Gordon road south, the car park behind the woods has no one over looking it and was one of 2 recommended sites in the independent survey. It Does not have 16 families within 30 metres!

However it is within councillor Eades ward, the same councillor who as mayor , an impartial position kept pushing creekmoor! Please look at the above site, I cannot see why this is any less suitable than the p and r which was ruled out 2 years ago.
Don't be stupid, it backs onto houses in Erpingham Road and Gordon Road South as well as houses at the entrance from a road that is at a standstill at certain times of the day. And where do you think that employees from LV are going to park? The whole area is choc a bloc now with their cars parked all over residential areas hence more and more yellow lines and parking restrictions in Branksome Park and Branksome. Engage brain before putting finger to keyboard.
I think you need to engage your brain!

Read the independent report that recommended it after ruling out over 20 sites. http://www.dorsetfor
you.com/media.jsp?me
diaid=167724

It's council owned land not lv's.
[quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DiggerRuss[/bold] wrote: Go to google maps and look at Gordon road south, the car park behind the woods has no one over looking it and was one of 2 recommended sites in the independent survey. It Does not have 16 families within 30 metres! However it is within councillor Eades ward, the same councillor who as mayor , an impartial position kept pushing creekmoor! Please look at the above site, I cannot see why this is any less suitable than the p and r which was ruled out 2 years ago.[/p][/quote]Don't be stupid, it backs onto houses in Erpingham Road and Gordon Road South as well as houses at the entrance from a road that is at a standstill at certain times of the day. And where do you think that employees from LV are going to park? The whole area is choc a bloc now with their cars parked all over residential areas hence more and more yellow lines and parking restrictions in Branksome Park and Branksome. Engage brain before putting finger to keyboard.[/p][/quote]I think you need to engage your brain! Read the independent report that recommended it after ruling out over 20 sites. http://www.dorsetfor you.com/media.jsp?me diaid=167724 It's council owned land not lv's. DiggerRuss
  • Score: 4

10:47am Fri 15 Aug 14

Wackerone says...

DiggerRuss wrote:
Wackerone wrote:
DiggerRuss wrote:
Go to google maps and look at Gordon road south, the car park behind the woods has no one over looking it and was one of 2 recommended sites in the independent survey. It Does not have 16 families within 30 metres!

However it is within councillor Eades ward, the same councillor who as mayor , an impartial position kept pushing creekmoor! Please look at the above site, I cannot see why this is any less suitable than the p and r which was ruled out 2 years ago.
Don't be stupid, it backs onto houses in Erpingham Road and Gordon Road South as well as houses at the entrance from a road that is at a standstill at certain times of the day. And where do you think that employees from LV are going to park? The whole area is choc a bloc now with their cars parked all over residential areas hence more and more yellow lines and parking restrictions in Branksome Park and Branksome. Engage brain before putting finger to keyboard.
I think you need to engage your brain!

Read the independent report that recommended it after ruling out over 20 sites. http://www.dorsetfor

you.com/media.jsp?me

diaid=167724

It's council owned land not lv's.
Yes, we've seen all this before. NB. These sites including Branksome Triangle were recommended by OUTSIDE INDEPENDENT CONSULTANTS, not by anybody in Poole. As an INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT taking all things into consideration, I would personally recommend the Creekmoor park and ride which is not in use for it's intended purpose, where as the Branksome Triangle is!!!!! I am sure that with a little persuasion, the British government would relax the original ruling put in place at Creekmoor. I would also assume that LV will renew their lease again this year, otherwise where are their hundreds of employees going to park. And as a final comment here, we all know what INDEPENDENT CONSULTANTS have done to this town over the years with their traffic systems, bridges and redevelopments etc.
[quote][p][bold]DiggerRuss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DiggerRuss[/bold] wrote: Go to google maps and look at Gordon road south, the car park behind the woods has no one over looking it and was one of 2 recommended sites in the independent survey. It Does not have 16 families within 30 metres! However it is within councillor Eades ward, the same councillor who as mayor , an impartial position kept pushing creekmoor! Please look at the above site, I cannot see why this is any less suitable than the p and r which was ruled out 2 years ago.[/p][/quote]Don't be stupid, it backs onto houses in Erpingham Road and Gordon Road South as well as houses at the entrance from a road that is at a standstill at certain times of the day. And where do you think that employees from LV are going to park? The whole area is choc a bloc now with their cars parked all over residential areas hence more and more yellow lines and parking restrictions in Branksome Park and Branksome. Engage brain before putting finger to keyboard.[/p][/quote]I think you need to engage your brain! Read the independent report that recommended it after ruling out over 20 sites. http://www.dorsetfor you.com/media.jsp?me diaid=167724 It's council owned land not lv's.[/p][/quote]Yes, we've seen all this before. NB. These sites including Branksome Triangle were recommended by OUTSIDE INDEPENDENT CONSULTANTS, not by anybody in Poole. As an INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT taking all things into consideration, I would personally recommend the Creekmoor park and ride which is not in use for it's intended purpose, where as the Branksome Triangle is!!!!! I am sure that with a little persuasion, the British government would relax the original ruling put in place at Creekmoor. I would also assume that LV will renew their lease again this year, otherwise where are their hundreds of employees going to park. And as a final comment here, we all know what INDEPENDENT CONSULTANTS have done to this town over the years with their traffic systems, bridges and redevelopments etc. Wackerone
  • Score: -8

10:49am Fri 15 Aug 14

TheDistrict says...

For those of you who mentioned my V sign, and relating it to Sir Winston Churchill, you will be pleased to know my V sign was not indicated by the showing of the palm, but with the back of the hand showing, and the hand being raised up and down..........obviou
s I would have thought......lol
For those of you who mentioned my V sign, and relating it to Sir Winston Churchill, you will be pleased to know my V sign was not indicated by the showing of the palm, but with the back of the hand showing, and the hand being raised up and down..........obviou s I would have thought......lol TheDistrict
  • Score: 0

10:50am Fri 15 Aug 14

DorsetFerret says...

DiggerRuss wrote:
Wackerone wrote:
DiggerRuss wrote:
Go to google maps and look at Gordon road south, the car park behind the woods has no one over looking it and was one of 2 recommended sites in the independent survey. It Does not have 16 families within 30 metres!

However it is within councillor Eades ward, the same councillor who as mayor , an impartial position kept pushing creekmoor! Please look at the above site, I cannot see why this is any less suitable than the p and r which was ruled out 2 years ago.
Don't be stupid, it backs onto houses in Erpingham Road and Gordon Road South as well as houses at the entrance from a road that is at a standstill at certain times of the day. And where do you think that employees from LV are going to park? The whole area is choc a bloc now with their cars parked all over residential areas hence more and more yellow lines and parking restrictions in Branksome Park and Branksome. Engage brain before putting finger to keyboard.
I think you need to engage your brain!

Read the independent report that recommended it after ruling out over 20 sites. http://www.dorsetfor

you.com/media.jsp?me

diaid=167724

It's council owned land not lv's.
My aim was to give this topic a miss today, not sure what more can be said. Then I saw your post and decided to have a look at the consultants choice of site. It's perfect. Easy access to the rest of Poole, well hidden, etc., Your absolutely right. why was it discounted? Oh yes, I remember, our impartial Mayor at the time probably knew it would cost him his seat so an alternative had to be found. Hard luck Creekmoor. In fact, when you look back over the 'Traveller' situation you could perhaps argue that they at least were going to be a forgone conclusion. What's made this such a shambles is our local governments mishandling of it from the beginning.
[quote][p][bold]DiggerRuss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DiggerRuss[/bold] wrote: Go to google maps and look at Gordon road south, the car park behind the woods has no one over looking it and was one of 2 recommended sites in the independent survey. It Does not have 16 families within 30 metres! However it is within councillor Eades ward, the same councillor who as mayor , an impartial position kept pushing creekmoor! Please look at the above site, I cannot see why this is any less suitable than the p and r which was ruled out 2 years ago.[/p][/quote]Don't be stupid, it backs onto houses in Erpingham Road and Gordon Road South as well as houses at the entrance from a road that is at a standstill at certain times of the day. And where do you think that employees from LV are going to park? The whole area is choc a bloc now with their cars parked all over residential areas hence more and more yellow lines and parking restrictions in Branksome Park and Branksome. Engage brain before putting finger to keyboard.[/p][/quote]I think you need to engage your brain! Read the independent report that recommended it after ruling out over 20 sites. http://www.dorsetfor you.com/media.jsp?me diaid=167724 It's council owned land not lv's.[/p][/quote]My aim was to give this topic a miss today, not sure what more can be said. Then I saw your post and decided to have a look at the consultants choice of site. It's perfect. Easy access to the rest of Poole, well hidden, etc., Your absolutely right. why was it discounted? Oh yes, I remember, our impartial Mayor at the time probably knew it would cost him his seat so an alternative had to be found. Hard luck Creekmoor. In fact, when you look back over the 'Traveller' situation you could perhaps argue that they at least were going to be a forgone conclusion. What's made this such a shambles is our local governments mishandling of it from the beginning. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 8

10:52am Fri 15 Aug 14

Marty Caine says...

FuturePM wrote:
And I think we should also remember those councillors in 2015....

I am often minded to stand as an independent in Creekmoor ward... we are not having our voices heard.
Then stand as an independent and help remove party politics from council.

http://martycaine.tu
mblr.com/post/947190
92463/a-message-to-t
he-poole-electorate
[quote][p][bold]FuturePM[/bold] wrote: And I think we should also remember those councillors in 2015.... I am often minded to stand as an independent in Creekmoor ward... we are not having our voices heard.[/p][/quote]Then stand as an independent and help remove party politics from council. http://martycaine.tu mblr.com/post/947190 92463/a-message-to-t he-poole-electorate Marty Caine
  • Score: -1

10:59am Fri 15 Aug 14

Carolyn43 says...

When I had to move here because of parents in ill-health, my friends told me what a nice place it was. Apart from the quay and Poole Park, in my opinion not much of it is particularly nice, but neither are many towns.

But they didn't know about the selfish, nasty attitude of some people who live here. So long as they're not inconvenienced in any way, they don't care who is. They have knee-jerk reactions to everything and twist anything that happens to suit their own agenda - example: the Creekmoor residents stopped the TSP, when in fact they expressed their concerns, but it was the council's own Planning Committee who rejected the site. And Creekmoor residents said they were concerned about the welfare of travellers, when in fact they were concerned that the site was unsuitable, wouldn't be used so the problem wouldn't be solved because the travellers would set up camp on private land instead, and it would be a waist of £250,000 of council tax payers money. But hey, don't let the truth get in the way of prejudice.

Unfortunately, I am stuck here while my parents are still alive, but, while not wishing them a hasty departure from this life, as soon as they are gone I will sell my house to the first person who offers to buy it and move somewhere where people are tolerant and caring about each other and who don't think that they want is what must happen at the expense of everyone else.
When I had to move here because of parents in ill-health, my friends told me what a nice place it was. Apart from the quay and Poole Park, in my opinion not much of it is particularly nice, but neither are many towns. But they didn't know about the selfish, nasty attitude of some people who live here. So long as they're not inconvenienced in any way, they don't care who is. They have knee-jerk reactions to everything and twist anything that happens to suit their own agenda - example: the Creekmoor residents stopped the TSP, when in fact they expressed their concerns, but it was the council's own Planning Committee who rejected the site. And Creekmoor residents said they were concerned about the welfare of travellers, when in fact they were concerned that the site was unsuitable, wouldn't be used so the problem wouldn't be solved because the travellers would set up camp on private land instead, and it would be a waist of £250,000 of council tax payers money. But hey, don't let the truth get in the way of prejudice. Unfortunately, I am stuck here while my parents are still alive, but, while not wishing them a hasty departure from this life, as soon as they are gone I will sell my house to the first person who offers to buy it and move somewhere where people are tolerant and caring about each other and who don't think that they want is what must happen at the expense of everyone else. Carolyn43
  • Score: -1

12:15pm Fri 15 Aug 14

DorsetFerret says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
When I had to move here because of parents in ill-health, my friends told me what a nice place it was. Apart from the quay and Poole Park, in my opinion not much of it is particularly nice, but neither are many towns.

But they didn't know about the selfish, nasty attitude of some people who live here. So long as they're not inconvenienced in any way, they don't care who is. They have knee-jerk reactions to everything and twist anything that happens to suit their own agenda - example: the Creekmoor residents stopped the TSP, when in fact they expressed their concerns, but it was the council's own Planning Committee who rejected the site. And Creekmoor residents said they were concerned about the welfare of travellers, when in fact they were concerned that the site was unsuitable, wouldn't be used so the problem wouldn't be solved because the travellers would set up camp on private land instead, and it would be a waist of £250,000 of council tax payers money. But hey, don't let the truth get in the way of prejudice.

Unfortunately, I am stuck here while my parents are still alive, but, while not wishing them a hasty departure from this life, as soon as they are gone I will sell my house to the first person who offers to buy it and move somewhere where people are tolerant and caring about each other and who don't think that they want is what must happen at the expense of everyone else.
It’s disappointing that you should feel this way Caroline. Poole is a lovely place and I guess most of us would like to keep it that way.

The reality is this business over travellers need never have happened.

In the first instance the brief given to the consultants should have specified locating an site that did not impact on any residential areas. If that wasn’t the case then someone got it wrong.

Having then paid £250.000 for the consultants report it was down to the then council leader to manage the situation and insist that one of the top four options be applied. As we now know there was too much at stake for councillors in those areas identified. Again this should have been a forgone conclusion. However, dealing with tough decisions is what the leader gets paid for.

What next? The travellers will be allowed to stay in Creekmoor this year. Hopefully, as Councillor Butt suggested he should do, Eric Pickles will get his act together and allow local authorities to combine to resolve this matter sensibly. There has to be some land somewhere between Christchurch, Bournemouth and Poole that can be agreed upon and a TSP set up for next year. The only problem with this is can the local authorities agree who will be in overall control?
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: When I had to move here because of parents in ill-health, my friends told me what a nice place it was. Apart from the quay and Poole Park, in my opinion not much of it is particularly nice, but neither are many towns. But they didn't know about the selfish, nasty attitude of some people who live here. So long as they're not inconvenienced in any way, they don't care who is. They have knee-jerk reactions to everything and twist anything that happens to suit their own agenda - example: the Creekmoor residents stopped the TSP, when in fact they expressed their concerns, but it was the council's own Planning Committee who rejected the site. And Creekmoor residents said they were concerned about the welfare of travellers, when in fact they were concerned that the site was unsuitable, wouldn't be used so the problem wouldn't be solved because the travellers would set up camp on private land instead, and it would be a waist of £250,000 of council tax payers money. But hey, don't let the truth get in the way of prejudice. Unfortunately, I am stuck here while my parents are still alive, but, while not wishing them a hasty departure from this life, as soon as they are gone I will sell my house to the first person who offers to buy it and move somewhere where people are tolerant and caring about each other and who don't think that they want is what must happen at the expense of everyone else.[/p][/quote]It’s disappointing that you should feel this way Caroline. Poole is a lovely place and I guess most of us would like to keep it that way. The reality is this business over travellers need never have happened. In the first instance the brief given to the consultants should have specified locating an site that did not impact on any residential areas. If that wasn’t the case then someone got it wrong. Having then paid £250.000 for the consultants report it was down to the then council leader to manage the situation and insist that one of the top four options be applied. As we now know there was too much at stake for councillors in those areas identified. Again this should have been a forgone conclusion. However, dealing with tough decisions is what the leader gets paid for. What next? The travellers will be allowed to stay in Creekmoor this year. Hopefully, as Councillor Butt suggested he should do, Eric Pickles will get his act together and allow local authorities to combine to resolve this matter sensibly. There has to be some land somewhere between Christchurch, Bournemouth and Poole that can be agreed upon and a TSP set up for next year. The only problem with this is can the local authorities agree who will be in overall control? DorsetFerret
  • Score: 5

12:23pm Fri 15 Aug 14

DorsetFerret says...

Apologies Carolyn43, miss spelt your name.
Apologies Carolyn43, miss spelt your name. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 0

2:02pm Fri 15 Aug 14

Wackerone says...

No DorsetFerret, Poole WAS a beautiful place. Destroyed by successive administrations since the seventies and overrun with immigration from every town North, East and West from here as well as overseas. I'm old enough to remember when it WAS a lovely place to live and a pleasure to drive anywhere you wanted to within a reasonable time without being continuously snarled up in ever increasing traffic. I remember when you could walk around the town in the evening and at night without fear of being robbed or assaulted. I remember when Canford Heath was a Heath, when Broastone was a village. Need I go on? No, like many other places it is not a beautiful place anymore. Although it might seem like it to people who have left the inner cities to impact on the indigenous population.
No DorsetFerret, Poole WAS a beautiful place. Destroyed by successive administrations since the seventies and overrun with immigration from every town North, East and West from here as well as overseas. I'm old enough to remember when it WAS a lovely place to live and a pleasure to drive anywhere you wanted to within a reasonable time without being continuously snarled up in ever increasing traffic. I remember when you could walk around the town in the evening and at night without fear of being robbed or assaulted. I remember when Canford Heath was a Heath, when Broastone was a village. Need I go on? No, like many other places it is not a beautiful place anymore. Although it might seem like it to people who have left the inner cities to impact on the indigenous population. Wackerone
  • Score: -3

3:29pm Fri 15 Aug 14

DorsetFerret says...

Wackerone wrote:
No DorsetFerret, Poole WAS a beautiful place. Destroyed by successive administrations since the seventies and overrun with immigration from every town North, East and West from here as well as overseas. I'm old enough to remember when it WAS a lovely place to live and a pleasure to drive anywhere you wanted to within a reasonable time without being continuously snarled up in ever increasing traffic. I remember when you could walk around the town in the evening and at night without fear of being robbed or assaulted. I remember when Canford Heath was a Heath, when Broastone was a village. Need I go on? No, like many other places it is not a beautiful place anymore. Although it might seem like it to people who have left the inner cities to impact on the indigenous population.
Strangely, I too can remember the railway and gas works along the quay, the old town slums, the old High St and Thos Cooks office where Barclays now stands, although I am not one of your 25% indigenous population of today. Why, even Gypsies (Tinkers) in those days were genuine. Poole had to develop or run the risk of being swallowed up by Bournemouth. Unfortunately, tourism has a nasty habit of destroying what made a place attractive in the first place. It is though a key part of the economy here but you can’t put all your eggs in one basket. That means develop or stagnate. I have travelled the UK and world fairy extensively and for all its faults, Poole is still a little gem and lovely place to live. What were the alternatives to progress? As for traffic problems, believe me, at their worst down here they don’t compare to many of the places I’ve visited. Try sitting on the M25 for three hours as I did last weekend.
[quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: No DorsetFerret, Poole WAS a beautiful place. Destroyed by successive administrations since the seventies and overrun with immigration from every town North, East and West from here as well as overseas. I'm old enough to remember when it WAS a lovely place to live and a pleasure to drive anywhere you wanted to within a reasonable time without being continuously snarled up in ever increasing traffic. I remember when you could walk around the town in the evening and at night without fear of being robbed or assaulted. I remember when Canford Heath was a Heath, when Broastone was a village. Need I go on? No, like many other places it is not a beautiful place anymore. Although it might seem like it to people who have left the inner cities to impact on the indigenous population.[/p][/quote]Strangely, I too can remember the railway and gas works along the quay, the old town slums, the old High St and Thos Cooks office where Barclays now stands, although I am not one of your 25% indigenous population of today. Why, even Gypsies (Tinkers) in those days were genuine. Poole had to develop or run the risk of being swallowed up by Bournemouth. Unfortunately, tourism has a nasty habit of destroying what made a place attractive in the first place. It is though a key part of the economy here but you can’t put all your eggs in one basket. That means develop or stagnate. I have travelled the UK and world fairy extensively and for all its faults, Poole is still a little gem and lovely place to live. What were the alternatives to progress? As for traffic problems, believe me, at their worst down here they don’t compare to many of the places I’ve visited. Try sitting on the M25 for three hours as I did last weekend. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 5

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

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

I agree