They shall not be moved

STAYING PUT: Traveller site at Creekmoor park-and-ride

STAYING PUT: Traveller site at Creekmoor park-and-ride

First published in Opinion

WHAT would you do if travellers kept moving from site to site and you were spending taxpayers’ money on evicting them?

The chances are you would want to find a temporary solution, if you couldn’t settle on a lasting one.

So Poole council has gone for the most obvious course of action given the sensitivities – the travellers are all in one place and, so far, not troubling anyone, so don’t move them.

Creekmoor residents and councillors are understandably upset by this. But it may just be the most cost-effective route in the short term.

Comments (12)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:21am Thu 14 Aug 14

we-shall-see says...

You can't please all of the people, all of the time and this is just such a case.

Having been a "victim" of them living on Turlin Moor recently, leaving the place covered in unmentionable human and dog filth, I fail to see the problem with them being left on the car park. It's a hard surface, so easy to clean up and for the most part away from residential housing.

If we must suffer their presence - at least make it as cheap to bear and clean up as possible.

One thing I do find strange though - their claimed they would refuse to use the Marshes End site if it had been given the go-ahead because of the contamination and possible health issues - yet here they sit not yards away and happy to stay for a couple of weeks until the steam fair opens.

It smacks of hypocrisy and sheer bl00dymindedness to me!
You can't please all of the people, all of the time and this is just such a case. Having been a "victim" of them living on Turlin Moor recently, leaving the place covered in unmentionable human and dog filth, I fail to see the problem with them being left on the car park. It's a hard surface, so easy to clean up and for the most part away from residential housing. If we must suffer their presence - at least make it as cheap to bear and clean up as possible. One thing I do find strange though - their claimed they would refuse to use the Marshes End site if it had been given the go-ahead because of the contamination and possible health issues - yet here they sit not yards away and happy to stay for a couple of weeks until the steam fair opens. It smacks of hypocrisy and sheer bl00dymindedness to me! we-shall-see
  • Score: 3

11:50am Thu 14 Aug 14

60plus says...

I would make sure they took their rubbish with them,don't let them off the site until they do I am sure at the steam fair they don't leave rubbish hanging around.
I would make sure they took their rubbish with them,don't let them off the site until they do I am sure at the steam fair they don't leave rubbish hanging around. 60plus
  • Score: 4

11:56am Thu 14 Aug 14

losthope says...

While we're talking about wasted money, how about all the cash Poole Council wasted on a public enquiry and feasability study when this 'solution' was here the whole time.

Come on, Echo, can you honestly think that this is right? I don't live in Creekmoor, but if this technique is now Poole Council's policy then the next 'expendable' area could be right outside my door and there'd be no chance to use legal processes to fight it.
While we're talking about wasted money, how about all the cash Poole Council wasted on a public enquiry and feasability study when this 'solution' was here the whole time. Come on, Echo, can you honestly think that this is right? I don't live in Creekmoor, but if this technique is now Poole Council's policy then the next 'expendable' area could be right outside my door and there'd be no chance to use legal processes to fight it. losthope
  • Score: -1

12:31pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Carolyn43 says...

So having disturbed sleep because of generators going all night and dogs barking isn't troubling anyone? I'd say it is.
So having disturbed sleep because of generators going all night and dogs barking isn't troubling anyone? I'd say it is. Carolyn43
  • Score: 6

12:33pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Carolyn43 says...

I say the above because the Echo obviously doesn't think the 16 families living opposite the park and ride and suffering disturbed sleep matter.
I say the above because the Echo obviously doesn't think the 16 families living opposite the park and ride and suffering disturbed sleep matter. Carolyn43
  • Score: 4

10:34am Fri 15 Aug 14

Jo__Go says...

Lazy and weaselly journalism. You manage to conflate two issues and pretend that the answer to one of them is also the answer to the other.
Issue #1 - is it easier to keep the travellers in one spot and not play chase all round the borough? Of course it is.
Issue #2 - is Creekmoor the right place to do that? Absolutely not!
...
Issue #1 is in fact the old question of providing some kind of transit facility, which Poole has struggled with, and finally decided earlier this year that there are no suitable sites. The place they are now using, was specifically excluded from the candidate list, being so utterly unsuitable and unacceptable, but because Shaun Robson, and the council leadership like 'easy' then they have opted out of the hard choices and given up. I question the fitness to serve of those that choose easy over right, but let's just for now say that 'kettling' the travellers is the least wrong option, then find a spot where residents and taxpayers are least inconvenienced and intimidated. Creekmoor P&R is NOT that spot (leaving aside the legalities of so blatantly going against stated council policy).
Longer term, the council must either bite the bullet and choose a location for a site, or stand by it's decision and 'harden' vulnerable sites around the borough. Each incursion teaches a lesson, fix the vulnerabilities one by one, and we will quickly stop being the soft target.
The message to travellers from the current policy is loud and clear... " Come to Poole for an easy berth, with no hassle, no fees, and all facilities provided free of charge". Is that the message the residents want to send?
Lazy and weaselly journalism. You manage to conflate two issues and pretend that the answer to one of them is also the answer to the other. Issue #1 - is it easier to keep the travellers in one spot and not play chase all round the borough? Of course it is. Issue #2 - is Creekmoor the right place to do that? Absolutely not! ... Issue #1 is in fact the old question of providing some kind of transit facility, which Poole has struggled with, and finally decided earlier this year that there are no suitable sites. The place they are now using, was specifically excluded from the candidate list, being so utterly unsuitable and unacceptable, but because Shaun Robson, and the council leadership like 'easy' then they have opted out of the hard choices and given up. I question the fitness to serve of those that choose easy over right, but let's just for now say that 'kettling' the travellers is the least wrong option, then find a spot where residents and taxpayers are least inconvenienced and intimidated. Creekmoor P&R is NOT that spot (leaving aside the legalities of so blatantly going against stated council policy). Longer term, the council must either bite the bullet and choose a location for a site, or stand by it's decision and 'harden' vulnerable sites around the borough. Each incursion teaches a lesson, fix the vulnerabilities one by one, and we will quickly stop being the soft target. The message to travellers from the current policy is loud and clear... " Come to Poole for an easy berth, with no hassle, no fees, and all facilities provided free of charge". Is that the message the residents want to send? Jo__Go
  • Score: 3

2:47pm Fri 15 Aug 14

pete woodley says...

I wonder just how many have full sympathy with the creekmoor residents,they did not seem to worry about other residents,at Turlin Moor,Baiter,etc.
I wonder just how many have full sympathy with the creekmoor residents,they did not seem to worry about other residents,at Turlin Moor,Baiter,etc. pete woodley
  • Score: -5

5:02pm Fri 15 Aug 14

Jo__Go says...

pete woodley wrote:
I wonder just how many have full sympathy with the creekmoor residents,they did not seem to worry about other residents,at Turlin Moor,Baiter,etc.
And you know this, how exactly?
In a stirring mood today, are we, Pete?
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: I wonder just how many have full sympathy with the creekmoor residents,they did not seem to worry about other residents,at Turlin Moor,Baiter,etc.[/p][/quote]And you know this, how exactly? In a stirring mood today, are we, Pete? Jo__Go
  • Score: 4

9:38am Sat 16 Aug 14

Carolyn43 says...

pete woodley wrote:
I wonder just how many have full sympathy with the creekmoor residents,they did not seem to worry about other residents,at Turlin Moor,Baiter,etc.
Have you seen/read anywhere that Creekmoor residents have said that? If so, where/when?

All that Creekmoor residents was to point out that the sites the council wanted to use were not suitable for a variety of reasons, and that they would be a waste of time and money because they would not solve the problem. If you really look into what's been said/written, Creekmoor residents do not want travellers ANYWHERE in Poole.

How I do wish people wouldn't interpret what has happened to suit their own agenda/biased opinion.
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: I wonder just how many have full sympathy with the creekmoor residents,they did not seem to worry about other residents,at Turlin Moor,Baiter,etc.[/p][/quote]Have you seen/read anywhere that Creekmoor residents have said that? If so, where/when? All that Creekmoor residents was to point out that the sites the council wanted to use were not suitable for a variety of reasons, and that they would be a waste of time and money because they would not solve the problem. If you really look into what's been said/written, Creekmoor residents do not want travellers ANYWHERE in Poole. How I do wish people wouldn't interpret what has happened to suit their own agenda/biased opinion. Carolyn43
  • Score: 4

9:42am Sat 16 Aug 14

Carolyn43 says...

Jo__Go wrote:
Lazy and weaselly journalism. You manage to conflate two issues and pretend that the answer to one of them is also the answer to the other.
Issue #1 - is it easier to keep the travellers in one spot and not play chase all round the borough? Of course it is.
Issue #2 - is Creekmoor the right place to do that? Absolutely not!
...
Issue #1 is in fact the old question of providing some kind of transit facility, which Poole has struggled with, and finally decided earlier this year that there are no suitable sites. The place they are now using, was specifically excluded from the candidate list, being so utterly unsuitable and unacceptable, but because Shaun Robson, and the council leadership like 'easy' then they have opted out of the hard choices and given up. I question the fitness to serve of those that choose easy over right, but let's just for now say that 'kettling' the travellers is the least wrong option, then find a spot where residents and taxpayers are least inconvenienced and intimidated. Creekmoor P&R is NOT that spot (leaving aside the legalities of so blatantly going against stated council policy).
Longer term, the council must either bite the bullet and choose a location for a site, or stand by it's decision and 'harden' vulnerable sites around the borough. Each incursion teaches a lesson, fix the vulnerabilities one by one, and we will quickly stop being the soft target.
The message to travellers from the current policy is loud and clear... " Come to Poole for an easy berth, with no hassle, no fees, and all facilities provided free of charge". Is that the message the residents want to send?
Very well said.

The council put measures into some sites, but left others to the mercy of the travellers - mostly in the east of the borough. Wonder why that is? And I mean that sarcastically because we know why it is.

The council is totally biased in favour of some areas.
[quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: Lazy and weaselly journalism. You manage to conflate two issues and pretend that the answer to one of them is also the answer to the other. Issue #1 - is it easier to keep the travellers in one spot and not play chase all round the borough? Of course it is. Issue #2 - is Creekmoor the right place to do that? Absolutely not! ... Issue #1 is in fact the old question of providing some kind of transit facility, which Poole has struggled with, and finally decided earlier this year that there are no suitable sites. The place they are now using, was specifically excluded from the candidate list, being so utterly unsuitable and unacceptable, but because Shaun Robson, and the council leadership like 'easy' then they have opted out of the hard choices and given up. I question the fitness to serve of those that choose easy over right, but let's just for now say that 'kettling' the travellers is the least wrong option, then find a spot where residents and taxpayers are least inconvenienced and intimidated. Creekmoor P&R is NOT that spot (leaving aside the legalities of so blatantly going against stated council policy). Longer term, the council must either bite the bullet and choose a location for a site, or stand by it's decision and 'harden' vulnerable sites around the borough. Each incursion teaches a lesson, fix the vulnerabilities one by one, and we will quickly stop being the soft target. The message to travellers from the current policy is loud and clear... " Come to Poole for an easy berth, with no hassle, no fees, and all facilities provided free of charge". Is that the message the residents want to send?[/p][/quote]Very well said. The council put measures into some sites, but left others to the mercy of the travellers - mostly in the east of the borough. Wonder why that is? And I mean that sarcastically because we know why it is. The council is totally biased in favour of some areas. Carolyn43
  • Score: 4

3:36pm Tue 26 Aug 14

Minty Fresh says...

What's needed is a clear law change that would put an end to travellers, in fact ANYONE, regardless of race, creed etc., from breaking the law in the way these nomadic scum do.
What's needed is a clear law change that would put an end to travellers, in fact ANYONE, regardless of race, creed etc., from breaking the law in the way these nomadic scum do. Minty Fresh
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Marty Caine says...

Well some councillors are still saying these problems would not have occurred if we had gone ahead with the planned TSP, that is obviously untrue because there were far more this year than there were allocated spaces on the original plan. So we would have still had the same problem anyway. However if the council is still insistent on wasting money on a TSP I still think the best place is that plot of land between the fire station and PC World.

You can see a pic of the land here:
http://www.poole-ind
ependents.co.uk/2014
/08/27/traveller-pro
blems-in-poole/
Well some councillors are still saying these problems would not have occurred if we had gone ahead with the planned TSP, that is obviously untrue because there were far more this year than there were allocated spaces on the original plan. So we would have still had the same problem anyway. However if the council is still insistent on wasting money on a TSP I still think the best place is that plot of land between the fire station and PC World. You can see a pic of the land here: http://www.poole-ind ependents.co.uk/2014 /08/27/traveller-pro blems-in-poole/ Marty Caine
  • Score: 0

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