Segregation by wealth

Bournemouth Echo: Segregation by wealth Segregation by wealth

With regard to the acrimonious exchanges at the Poole emergency council meeting on the matter of accommodating travellers, the only way I can understand this is in full social context.

And that full context is that we live in one of the most class and wealth stratified societies in the world.

And this no more evident than in the borough of Poole where we have very large wealthy often gated areas and, entirely separately, other very large areas where deprivation could not be more evident.

It is in the end wealth segregation, if not wealth apartheid.

Many will thoroughly reject that view.

In my view because the truth is no more seen than colour segregation was ever seen or acknowledged in well known western countries for whole lifetimes.

However, land/wealth apartheid certainly comes to the surface when it is the matter of travellers and, in my view, speaks volumes about how we treat all who lack power, wealth, and most particularly land.

As for the solution from Poole council to spend £250,000 on developing a temporary site, I can only see this, in terms of the huge cost, as sheer lunacy when there is clearly at hand a very simple distributed solution.

And that is to allow small groups of travellers – for limited periods only – on to all the open space recreation grounds in Poole.

I can see no reason why not. It’s a matter of residents having the courage to accommodate and give travellers a chance to show they can reciprocate – not developing expensive segregation compounds (at residents’ cost!) to keep ‘them’ away from ‘us’.

Jeff Williams, Jubilee Road, Parkstone

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:08am Mon 3 Feb 14

losthope says...

Why should I have to have the 'courage to accommodate' groups of lawbreakers? Especially when I am paying for the facilities for them and the clean up after them through my council tax at a time when services for those who do pay council tax are being cut.

How about the Council having the courage to listen to residents and sort out the existing Mannings Heath site for travellers?
Why should I have to have the 'courage to accommodate' groups of lawbreakers? Especially when I am paying for the facilities for them and the clean up after them through my council tax at a time when services for those who do pay council tax are being cut. How about the Council having the courage to listen to residents and sort out the existing Mannings Heath site for travellers? losthope

11:43am Mon 3 Feb 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

losthope wrote:
Why should I have to have the 'courage to accommodate' groups of lawbreakers? Especially when I am paying for the facilities for them and the clean up after them through my council tax at a time when services for those who do pay council tax are being cut.

How about the Council having the courage to listen to residents and sort out the existing Mannings Heath site for travellers?
Well Mannings Heath is not an option unfortunately, as it has recently had a major overall, so recent it doesn't show on Google Maps. The site is now full of very nice little chalets and is a permanent residence site for gypsies.

The problem with Jeff's idea here is he doesn't seem to realise that his soft touch approach will only encourage even more travellers to come and park anywhere they like. which would in fact create a bigger problem. So as the law stands for the police to be able to move them off unauthorised camps they do need to have a transit site alternative. I somehow get the impression that the council played spin the bottle and it landed on creekmoor but why they need to build two site is beyond me especially as the second smaller site is only big enough for four plots. I am sure if the planning department put a little more effort into finding a suitable location this issue could be resolved amicably, I do not think that the council have looked at all possible sites fully and as I also doubt it will actually get used it certainly doesn't need two.
[quote][p][bold]losthope[/bold] wrote: Why should I have to have the 'courage to accommodate' groups of lawbreakers? Especially when I am paying for the facilities for them and the clean up after them through my council tax at a time when services for those who do pay council tax are being cut. How about the Council having the courage to listen to residents and sort out the existing Mannings Heath site for travellers?[/p][/quote]Well Mannings Heath is not an option unfortunately, as it has recently had a major overall, so recent it doesn't show on Google Maps. The site is now full of very nice little chalets and is a permanent residence site for gypsies. The problem with Jeff's idea here is he doesn't seem to realise that his soft touch approach will only encourage even more travellers to come and park anywhere they like. which would in fact create a bigger problem. So as the law stands for the police to be able to move them off unauthorised camps they do need to have a transit site alternative. I somehow get the impression that the council played spin the bottle and it landed on creekmoor but why they need to build two site is beyond me especially as the second smaller site is only big enough for four plots. I am sure if the planning department put a little more effort into finding a suitable location this issue could be resolved amicably, I do not think that the council have looked at all possible sites fully and as I also doubt it will actually get used it certainly doesn't need two. Marty Caine UKIP

11:46am Mon 3 Feb 14

Old Colonial says...

And perhaps councils should have the 'courage' to provide all services to residents free for say one year? No tax, car parking, admin fees etc. Would that make you feel better?
And perhaps councils should have the 'courage' to provide all services to residents free for say one year? No tax, car parking, admin fees etc. Would that make you feel better? Old Colonial

12:23pm Mon 3 Feb 14

RM says...

As some of the travellers who came to my local Rec had almost new vehicles worth £45K - £60K, in addition to their caravans I hardly feel they were strapped for cash. In addition, the majority of them have their own homes in Ireland. So if the problem is caused by segregation based on wealth we tax paying residents are the poor. If you want to prove your point Mr Williams, how about inviting them to camp on the Jubilee Road car park - nice hard standing already in place, public loos & running water nearby - close to the shops?
As some of the travellers who came to my local Rec had almost new vehicles worth £45K - £60K, in addition to their caravans I hardly feel they were strapped for cash. In addition, the majority of them have their own homes in Ireland. So if the problem is caused by segregation based on wealth we tax paying residents are the poor. If you want to prove your point Mr Williams, how about inviting them to camp on the Jubilee Road car park - nice hard standing already in place, public loos & running water nearby - close to the shops? RM

12:48pm Mon 3 Feb 14

BoscVegas says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
losthope wrote:
Why should I have to have the 'courage to accommodate' groups of lawbreakers? Especially when I am paying for the facilities for them and the clean up after them through my council tax at a time when services for those who do pay council tax are being cut.

How about the Council having the courage to listen to residents and sort out the existing Mannings Heath site for travellers?
Well Mannings Heath is not an option unfortunately, as it has recently had a major overall, so recent it doesn't show on Google Maps. The site is now full of very nice little chalets and is a permanent residence site for gypsies.

The problem with Jeff's idea here is he doesn't seem to realise that his soft touch approach will only encourage even more travellers to come and park anywhere they like. which would in fact create a bigger problem. So as the law stands for the police to be able to move them off unauthorised camps they do need to have a transit site alternative. I somehow get the impression that the council played spin the bottle and it landed on creekmoor but why they need to build two site is beyond me especially as the second smaller site is only big enough for four plots. I am sure if the planning department put a little more effort into finding a suitable location this issue could be resolved amicably, I do not think that the council have looked at all possible sites fully and as I also doubt it will actually get used it certainly doesn't need two.
Look on the bright side Marty, at least you will know where to find them. When UKIP get into power, It will be much easier to round them up and chase them back to Holyhead with pikes.
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]losthope[/bold] wrote: Why should I have to have the 'courage to accommodate' groups of lawbreakers? Especially when I am paying for the facilities for them and the clean up after them through my council tax at a time when services for those who do pay council tax are being cut. How about the Council having the courage to listen to residents and sort out the existing Mannings Heath site for travellers?[/p][/quote]Well Mannings Heath is not an option unfortunately, as it has recently had a major overall, so recent it doesn't show on Google Maps. The site is now full of very nice little chalets and is a permanent residence site for gypsies. The problem with Jeff's idea here is he doesn't seem to realise that his soft touch approach will only encourage even more travellers to come and park anywhere they like. which would in fact create a bigger problem. So as the law stands for the police to be able to move them off unauthorised camps they do need to have a transit site alternative. I somehow get the impression that the council played spin the bottle and it landed on creekmoor but why they need to build two site is beyond me especially as the second smaller site is only big enough for four plots. I am sure if the planning department put a little more effort into finding a suitable location this issue could be resolved amicably, I do not think that the council have looked at all possible sites fully and as I also doubt it will actually get used it certainly doesn't need two.[/p][/quote]Look on the bright side Marty, at least you will know where to find them. When UKIP get into power, It will be much easier to round them up and chase them back to Holyhead with pikes. BoscVegas

1:02pm Mon 3 Feb 14

Jeff in Parkstone says...

This is a very faught issue.

I don't doubt as for instance Colin Lambert in Whitecliffe has made clear there was a great deal of anti-social behaviour from travellers last year at Whitecliffe.

And I know one group caused much upset to one cafe owner in Ashley Road.

But I also saw a dozen caravans on Branksome Rec as far as I could see causing no problems - except litter and that because clearly although litter was mostly bagged there was no refuse collections.

In the end the way council and government policy is moving we end up outlawing all travellers in the country. No-where left to go where any travellers can stop over for a few days or a week.

Or as in Poole as proposed they are to be marshalled onto derelict polluted land that most of us would not put a dog on.

The issue is in the end LAND.

Land is the issue and always has been but we have lost near all OUR Common Land over the centuries to PRIVATE OWNERSHIP.

Any number of major land owners owning near half of counties but no common land for the gernal public including travellers - any and all travellers who want to spend some months each year travelling the country.

In my book they have every right to do this and have every right to expect every county in the country to have open common land for use by any travelling people.

But as it is - for instance - MP Richard Drax holds 7,000 acres just north of Wimborne - 7,000 acres for one family - but the whole of Poole Borough if not all West Dorset cannot find a couple of acres for travelling families. Or anyone who just wants to head out camp or caravan on open public common land ...

In the end as ever we are left dealing with the sheer obsenity of land ownership in the British Isles as dealt out over the centuries - one family with 7,000 acres - but not a scrap of common land in the whole of East Dorset for common use by all including travellers.

And that is why I personally speak up for travellers. And that said in all practical terms I cannot see why we cannot have a one year trial accommodating small groups of travellers on each Rec to maximum 10 caravans, with toilet/litter facilties, for maximum stay of four weeks. And of the many points here one is that once accommodated that does enable council and police to liaise and deal with issues as they arise - not as currently proposed by council think that "eviction" and mashalling travellers to another site (where they do not want to go to) will ever solve this problem ....

That approach - eviction and enforcement - will never work. It will surely only make matters worse and worse ...

As for point above giving facilities encourages more travellers into Poole - I would say no - a number limit and stuck to - a given section of each major rec for a given period. That then backed up by enforcement and I would say all the more wholly supported when travellers have been given a chance in Poole to be accommodated ....

Jeff Williams
This is a very faught issue. I don't doubt as for instance Colin Lambert in Whitecliffe has made clear there was a great deal of anti-social behaviour from travellers last year at Whitecliffe. And I know one group caused much upset to one cafe owner in Ashley Road. But I also saw a dozen caravans on Branksome Rec as far as I could see causing no problems - except litter and that because clearly although litter was mostly bagged there was no refuse collections. In the end the way council and government policy is moving we end up outlawing all travellers in the country. No-where left to go where any travellers can stop over for a few days or a week. Or as in Poole as proposed they are to be marshalled onto derelict polluted land that most of us would not put a dog on. The issue is in the end LAND. Land is the issue and always has been but we have lost near all OUR Common Land over the centuries to PRIVATE OWNERSHIP. Any number of major land owners owning near half of counties but no common land for the gernal public including travellers - any and all travellers who want to spend some months each year travelling the country. In my book they have every right to do this and have every right to expect every county in the country to have open common land for use by any travelling people. But as it is - for instance - MP Richard Drax holds 7,000 acres just north of Wimborne - 7,000 acres for one family - but the whole of Poole Borough if not all West Dorset cannot find a couple of acres for travelling families. Or anyone who just wants to head out camp or caravan on open public common land ... In the end as ever we are left dealing with the sheer obsenity of land ownership in the British Isles as dealt out over the centuries - one family with 7,000 acres - but not a scrap of common land in the whole of East Dorset for common use by all including travellers. And that is why I personally speak up for travellers. And that said in all practical terms I cannot see why we cannot have a one year trial accommodating small groups of travellers on each Rec to maximum 10 caravans, with toilet/litter facilties, for maximum stay of four weeks. And of the many points here one is that once accommodated that does enable council and police to liaise and deal with issues as they arise - not as currently proposed by council think that "eviction" and mashalling travellers to another site (where they do not want to go to) will ever solve this problem .... That approach - eviction and enforcement - will never work. It will surely only make matters worse and worse ... As for point above giving facilities encourages more travellers into Poole - I would say no - a number limit and stuck to - a given section of each major rec for a given period. That then backed up by enforcement and I would say all the more wholly supported when travellers have been given a chance in Poole to be accommodated .... Jeff Williams Jeff in Parkstone

4:00pm Mon 3 Feb 14

RM says...

Mr Williams - if I can just give you a little reality check re the travelers on Branksome Rec.

- where locks were smashed & broken
- where metal fences were cut & then ripped out of the ground - complete with cement bases
- where an 80+ y.o. resident was nearly mown down by a traveler van because she tried to hold the gate closed when they initially arrived - while the police looked on
- where the local Cllrs did in fact arrange for additional rubbish collections specifically within the Rec - though it's a bit difficult to keep up to speed with rubbish collection when the rubbish includes broken TVs & strollers & water tanks
- where the residents were verbally abused & threatened for daring to enter the Rec
- where the travelers parked their vans on the pathways so that the residents had no access to walk, cycle or run around the Rec or use the green gym as they normally do
- where a resident got bitten by a traveler dog & where most residents were scared to walk their dogs as the traveler dogs were running loose
- where a resident's grandchildren were threatened by a traveler with a knife

So please do not talk about travelers 'causing no trouble' on Branksome Rec when you appear to be completely unaware of the actual facts.
Mr Williams - if I can just give you a little reality check re the travelers on Branksome Rec. - where locks were smashed & broken - where metal fences were cut & then ripped out of the ground - complete with cement bases - where an 80+ y.o. resident was nearly mown down by a traveler van because she tried to hold the gate closed when they initially arrived - while the police looked on - where the local Cllrs did in fact arrange for additional rubbish collections specifically within the Rec - though it's a bit difficult to keep up to speed with rubbish collection when the rubbish includes broken TVs & strollers & water tanks - where the residents were verbally abused & threatened for daring to enter the Rec - where the travelers parked their vans on the pathways so that the residents had no access to walk, cycle or run around the Rec or use the green gym as they normally do - where a resident got bitten by a traveler dog & where most residents were scared to walk their dogs as the traveler dogs were running loose - where a resident's grandchildren were threatened by a traveler with a knife So please do not talk about travelers 'causing no trouble' on Branksome Rec when you appear to be completely unaware of the actual facts. RM

4:07pm Mon 3 Feb 14

pete woodley says...

RM,surely you are aware that Jeff is an expert on the area.Have you not been closely reading his comments on this site.
RM,surely you are aware that Jeff is an expert on the area.Have you not been closely reading his comments on this site. pete woodley

6:28pm Mon 3 Feb 14

RM says...

pete woodley wrote:
RM,surely you are aware that Jeff is an expert on the area.Have you not been closely reading his comments on this site.
Thank you Pete. Your comment gave me the first laugh out loud moment since this controversial subject (travellers) re-appeared on the Echo pages.
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: RM,surely you are aware that Jeff is an expert on the area.Have you not been closely reading his comments on this site.[/p][/quote]Thank you Pete. Your comment gave me the first laugh out loud moment since this controversial subject (travellers) re-appeared on the Echo pages. RM

6:39pm Mon 3 Feb 14

Jeff in Parkstone says...

RM - I suspect you are Colin Lambert writing under another pseudonym - the list of offences you give is near word perfect the list you sent earlier in email .... or we are saying exactly the same set of offences happned at Whitecliffe and Branksome ....

Well no matter - none of this is constructive if you or who-ever is not of a mind to work for solutions ....
RM - I suspect you are Colin Lambert writing under another pseudonym - the list of offences you give is near word perfect the list you sent earlier in email .... or we are saying exactly the same set of offences happned at Whitecliffe and Branksome .... Well no matter - none of this is constructive if you or who-ever is not of a mind to work for solutions .... Jeff in Parkstone

6:44pm Mon 3 Feb 14

Jeff in Parkstone says...

Pete Woodley ... I don't presume to be an expert on anything but I do try and speak up for our area (Upper Parkstone) and other issues ....

The status quo is that some have huge holdings of land (MP Richard Drax with 7,000 acres in Dorset) - others like mos of us have precious little - and that is the point I make - including travellers, the rising numbers of homeless, the 4,000 + on Poole Housing Waiting List, all struggling to pay mortgages and rents ...

JW
Pete Woodley ... I don't presume to be an expert on anything but I do try and speak up for our area (Upper Parkstone) and other issues .... The status quo is that some have huge holdings of land (MP Richard Drax with 7,000 acres in Dorset) - others like mos of us have precious little - and that is the point I make - including travellers, the rising numbers of homeless, the 4,000 + on Poole Housing Waiting List, all struggling to pay mortgages and rents ... JW Jeff in Parkstone

7:34pm Mon 3 Feb 14

pete woodley says...

Come on RM, jeffs comment must be the best joke of the week,He want the serfs to rise up and get rid of the gentry and they say councillors are clowns Jeffs got to be the biggest clown around.The 4.000+ on the housing list are not all homeless are they,Do you expect Drax to turn over his land to have a council estate built on. Are travellers struggling to pay mortgages and rents ?.are the 4.000 all struggling to pay mortgages and rents.What are you on Jeff,you relly should think before you write such rubbish.
Come on RM, jeffs comment must be the best joke of the week,He want the serfs to rise up and get rid of the gentry and they say councillors are clowns Jeffs got to be the biggest clown around.The 4.000+ on the housing list are not all homeless are they,Do you expect Drax to turn over his land to have a council estate built on. Are travellers struggling to pay mortgages and rents ?.are the 4.000 all struggling to pay mortgages and rents.What are you on Jeff,you relly should think before you write such rubbish. pete woodley

7:35pm Mon 3 Feb 14

RM says...

Mr Williams, first of all, I am not Colin Lambert - nor do I have a clue who that gentleman is.
Secondly, if the list I made about how the travellers behaved on Branksome Rec matches the list that this Mr Lambert has compiled on a different green space - do you not think that says something about how travellers behave? I attended the Cabinet Meeting where the question of the two proposed sites was initially meant to have been decided - it was full of Creekmoor residents saying pretty much the things that I've just said,
And without trying to be offensive, may I just add, I live in Upper Parkstone & you definitely do not speak for me. If someone was speaking on my behalf, I would expect them to have spoken to me & discussed my opinions beforehand. Not just assumed that their opinion is the only valid opinion in town. I would repeat my previous suggestion - invite a small bunch of travellers to camp on the Jubilee Road car park - I think that's quite a constructive suggestion & you'll be able to test at first hand whether or not your theories about dealing with travellers works. Good night Mr Williams, I believe there's some paint drying that I need to attend to.
Mr Williams, first of all, I am not Colin Lambert - nor do I have a clue who that gentleman is. Secondly, if the list I made about how the travellers behaved on Branksome Rec matches the list that this Mr Lambert has compiled on a different green space - do you not think that says something about how travellers behave? I attended the Cabinet Meeting where the question of the two proposed sites was initially meant to have been decided - it was full of Creekmoor residents saying pretty much the things that I've just said, And without trying to be offensive, may I just add, I live in Upper Parkstone & you definitely do not speak for me. If someone was speaking on my behalf, I would expect them to have spoken to me & discussed my opinions beforehand. Not just assumed that their opinion is the only valid opinion in town. I would repeat my previous suggestion - invite a small bunch of travellers to camp on the Jubilee Road car park - I think that's quite a constructive suggestion & you'll be able to test at first hand whether or not your theories about dealing with travellers works. Good night Mr Williams, I believe there's some paint drying that I need to attend to. RM

5:52pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Jo__Go says...

I look forward to Eades polishing his chain and welcoming travellers to Branksome Rec. His delight and loving embrace was very evident last year when they turned up to celebrate his Mayoral year.
I'm utterly flummoxed as to why he didn't bounce the Creekmoor proposal and offer his own back yard...
I look forward to Eades polishing his chain and welcoming travellers to Branksome Rec. His delight and loving embrace was very evident last year when they turned up to celebrate his Mayoral year. I'm utterly flummoxed as to why he didn't bounce the Creekmoor proposal and offer his own back yard... Jo__Go

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

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

I agree