Councillors approve temporary transit site for travellers at Piddlehinton

Travellers site given green light

Travellers site given green light

First published in News
Last updated

PLANS for a transit site for travellers at Piddlehinton have been approved at a heated meeting this morning.

Dozens of local residents attended the meeting of Dorset County Council’s planning committee to consider an application for a temporary transit site for gypsies and travellers on land opposite Piddlehinton Enterprise Park.

The site will cater for up to 25 caravans between March and August until 2016 and will offer police somewhere to move on travellers who are camped illegally elsewhere in the county.

All facilities will be temporary and will be removed when the site is not in use.

The county council has been forced to look for a temporary solution as moves to find permanent travellers site in conjunction with district and borough councils across the county are unlikely to bear any fruit until 2017.

At the meeting residents raised concerns including the impact on security, particularly for businesses at the Enterprise Park, and the potential for ‘friction’ between those using the site and the residents of a permanent gypsy site already up in existence in the village.

Local district councillor Jacqui Cuff said she had been contacted by hundreds of local residents who had voiced their objections to the proposed scheme.

She said: “I agree with and readily understand the need for a transit site in Dorset but this site is really not appropriate, not even on a temporary basis.”

The site proposed was used as a temporary site for travellers during the 2012 Olympics and local county councillor Jill Haynes said that villagers and businesses at the trading estate had experienced problems then.

She added: “We can’t be putting up with this endlessly.”

Police and Crime Commissioner for Dorset Martyn Underhill addressed the meeting to outline the need for police to have a transit site to exercise their powers to move on illegal encampments.

He said: “I have to stand here and say that without approval here today police powers are halved and the police are standing with their hands tied behind their back.”

There were chaotic scenes at times during the meeting, with members of the public voicing their disapproval on several occasions.

At one stage a proposal to refuse the scheme, put forward by Cllr David Jones, appeared to have been passed when two members voted for refusal and one against with the remaining three councillors not voting.

However, after the rest of the committee asked for clarification the vote was taken again and the motion was defeated by two votes to four.

Eventually the committee voted to approve the application, subject to a number of conditions including a condition that members asked to be added requiring the site to manned at all times when it is occupied for additional security.

After the meeting Police and Crime Commissioner for Dorset Martyn Underhill said he welcomed the powers the site would give to officers to move on unauthorised encampment but said he had sympathy for the local residents and their concerns.

He said it would be interested to review how the new site worked in Dorset, particularly in contrast to Poole and Bournemouth where efforts to secure a transit site had so far proved unsuccessful.

Mr Underhill said: “I’m pleased that we now have an alternative in one part of Dorset to what has been happening year after year and we will watch with interest to see what happens.

“The conurbation hasn’t got this facility and the county has and in six months time we will reflect on which system works.”

He added: “I’m very aware it is an incredibly divisive issue and I do have sympathy with the comments from local residents.”

 

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

Comments (58)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:32pm Fri 9 May 14

shy talk says...

So this site has room for 25 caravans. Will the police still have powers to move on unauthorised encampments if the site is full?
So this site has room for 25 caravans. Will the police still have powers to move on unauthorised encampments if the site is full? shy talk
  • Score: 15

12:33pm Fri 9 May 14

MrTomSmith says...

You can't use the "G" word how ridiculous is that.
You can't use the "G" word how ridiculous is that. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 26

1:10pm Fri 9 May 14

cj07589 says...

Law abiding folk shafted once again. I would request a judicial review ASAP doesn't cost a lot and in the short term will secure a bit more peace and security in the interim. Please note that you need to apply for judicial review at the earliest opportunity after approval is granted this must be submitted ideally within 4weeks and no later than 6weeks from the dated consent. Good luck I will wish you every success in fighting for the human rights of law abiding tax paying citizens.
Law abiding folk shafted once again. I would request a judicial review ASAP doesn't cost a lot and in the short term will secure a bit more peace and security in the interim. Please note that you need to apply for judicial review at the earliest opportunity after approval is granted this must be submitted ideally within 4weeks and no later than 6weeks from the dated consent. Good luck I will wish you every success in fighting for the human rights of law abiding tax paying citizens. cj07589
  • Score: 28

1:27pm Fri 9 May 14

skye2491 says...

Good luck to the residents traveler's will take over
Good luck to the residents traveler's will take over skye2491
  • Score: 20

1:45pm Fri 9 May 14

skye2491 says...

Hardware shops should do well from this
Hardware shops should do well from this skye2491
  • Score: 9

3:43pm Fri 9 May 14

Sigurd Hoeberth says...

Another EU directive has created this.

Vote UKIP.
Another EU directive has created this. Vote UKIP. Sigurd Hoeberth
  • Score: 19

4:30pm Fri 9 May 14

Bob Goulding says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
You can't use the "G" word how ridiculous is that.
Quite agree. If it is okay for us to refer to "Black and Asian" communities, why should use of the "G" word be considered disrespectful. It is a 'label' that they have chosen for themselves and I am sure that real Romany "Gs" are proud to be known as such. Also, if we are not allowed to refer to "Gs" why is it okay to refer to "Irish Travellers". Seems very inconsistent to me. By the way, we are all protected by the Race Relations Act but this does not imply that "Gs" or any other "ethnic group" should receive special treatment or consideration in law.
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: You can't use the "G" word how ridiculous is that.[/p][/quote]Quite agree. If it is okay for us to refer to "Black and Asian" communities, why should use of the "G" word be considered disrespectful. It is a 'label' that they have chosen for themselves and I am sure that real Romany "Gs" are proud to be known as such. Also, if we are not allowed to refer to "Gs" why is it okay to refer to "Irish Travellers". Seems very inconsistent to me. By the way, we are all protected by the Race Relations Act but this does not imply that "Gs" or any other "ethnic group" should receive special treatment or consideration in law. Bob Goulding
  • Score: 15

6:48pm Fri 9 May 14

PossumGoose says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
You can't use the "G" word how ridiculous is that.
What do you expect from the editorial team from this newspaper? It’s easy to poke fun of some poor unfortunate chap who thinks he’s a “Spiritual Ninja”. But to differentiate between racial abuse and a widely used and accepted name for a cultural group of people - well this would take at least a couple of joined up brain cells. Sadly not something the Echo is blessed with.
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: You can't use the "G" word how ridiculous is that.[/p][/quote]What do you expect from the editorial team from this newspaper? It’s easy to poke fun of some poor unfortunate chap who thinks he’s a “Spiritual Ninja”. But to differentiate between racial abuse and a widely used and accepted name for a cultural group of people - well this would take at least a couple of joined up brain cells. Sadly not something the Echo is blessed with. PossumGoose
  • Score: 19

7:03pm Fri 9 May 14

Sigurd Hoeberth says...

PossumGoose wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
You can't use the "G" word how ridiculous is that.
What do you expect from the editorial team from this newspaper? It’s easy to poke fun of some poor unfortunate chap who thinks he’s a “Spiritual Ninja”. But to differentiate between racial abuse and a widely used and accepted name for a cultural group of people - well this would take at least a couple of joined up brain cells. Sadly not something the Echo is blessed with.
It's okay they just censored another comment on a story about a local politician using an event for bandwagon jumping that pointed out what he was saying is wrong and exactly why. It is for hundreds of years a citizens right to chastise a political representative, but not since we joined the EU and our media is owned and controlled by group think, only Newspeak is allowed.
[quote][p][bold]PossumGoose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: You can't use the "G" word how ridiculous is that.[/p][/quote]What do you expect from the editorial team from this newspaper? It’s easy to poke fun of some poor unfortunate chap who thinks he’s a “Spiritual Ninja”. But to differentiate between racial abuse and a widely used and accepted name for a cultural group of people - well this would take at least a couple of joined up brain cells. Sadly not something the Echo is blessed with.[/p][/quote]It's okay they just censored another comment on a story about a local politician using an event for bandwagon jumping that pointed out what he was saying is wrong and exactly why. It is for hundreds of years a citizens right to chastise a political representative, but not since we joined the EU and our media is owned and controlled by group think, only Newspeak is allowed. Sigurd Hoeberth
  • Score: 11

7:03pm Fri 9 May 14

cosmick says...

UKIP will take away the rights given to these people.
Then if they want to set up a **** site they will have to go through the same channels as LAW abidding people.
VOTE UKIP!
UKIP will take away the rights given to these people. Then if they want to set up a **** site they will have to go through the same channels as LAW abidding people. VOTE UKIP! cosmick
  • Score: 26

7:08pm Fri 9 May 14

Sigurd Hoeberth says...

cosmick wrote:
UKIP will take away the rights given to these people.
Then if they want to set up a **** site they will have to go through the same channels as LAW abidding people.
VOTE UKIP!
Question time was good eh? Especially that bit where the EU apparatchiks of the Liblabcon screamed and shouted while lying to the public about EU control of this country when Nigel tried when he tried to tell the truth about the EU ability to over rule our own government on the Pfizer deal with our second best asset

They blatantly lie to the public.
[quote][p][bold]cosmick[/bold] wrote: UKIP will take away the rights given to these people. Then if they want to set up a **** site they will have to go through the same channels as LAW abidding people. VOTE UKIP![/p][/quote]Question time was good eh? Especially that bit where the EU apparatchiks of the Liblabcon screamed and shouted while lying to the public about EU control of this country when Nigel tried when he tried to tell the truth about the EU ability to over rule our own government on the Pfizer deal with our second best asset They blatantly lie to the public. Sigurd Hoeberth
  • Score: 19

7:27pm Fri 9 May 14

woodsedge says...

"In 1994 the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJPOA) was passed. The CJPOA 1994 repealed much of the CSA 1968, including the duty imposed on County Councils to provide authorised sites. Though the Section 24 CSCDA 1960 power to provide sites has been retained, central funding for the provision of such sites was withdrawn and with little incentive to use that power the number of local authority sites has fallen. At the same time the CJPOA 1994 gave both the Police and local authorities additional powers to remove Gypsies and Travellers when they park their caravans on unauthorised encampments".

English law not European but then again that doesn't matter to the angry party. I personally believe that everyone should abide by the law of the land and should not be treated any differently to anyone else.
"In 1994 the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJPOA) was passed. The CJPOA 1994 repealed much of the CSA 1968, including the duty imposed on County Councils to provide authorised sites. Though the Section 24 CSCDA 1960 power to provide sites has been retained, central funding for the provision of such sites was withdrawn and with little incentive to use that power the number of local authority sites has fallen. At the same time the CJPOA 1994 gave both the Police and local authorities additional powers to remove Gypsies and Travellers when they park their caravans on unauthorised encampments". English law not European but then again that doesn't matter to the angry party. I personally believe that everyone should abide by the law of the land and should not be treated any differently to anyone else. woodsedge
  • Score: 5

7:32pm Fri 9 May 14

Sigurd Hoeberth says...

woodsedge wrote:
"In 1994 the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJPOA) was passed. The CJPOA 1994 repealed much of the CSA 1968, including the duty imposed on County Councils to provide authorised sites. Though the Section 24 CSCDA 1960 power to provide sites has been retained, central funding for the provision of such sites was withdrawn and with little incentive to use that power the number of local authority sites has fallen. At the same time the CJPOA 1994 gave both the Police and local authorities additional powers to remove Gypsies and Travellers when they park their caravans on unauthorised encampments".

English law not European but then again that doesn't matter to the angry party. I personally believe that everyone should abide by the law of the land and should not be treated any differently to anyone else.
Try stopping them, removing these sites and making them abide by all the other laws we do, then you will see your EU law at work ;-)
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: "In 1994 the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJPOA) was passed. The CJPOA 1994 repealed much of the CSA 1968, including the duty imposed on County Councils to provide authorised sites. Though the Section 24 CSCDA 1960 power to provide sites has been retained, central funding for the provision of such sites was withdrawn and with little incentive to use that power the number of local authority sites has fallen. At the same time the CJPOA 1994 gave both the Police and local authorities additional powers to remove Gypsies and Travellers when they park their caravans on unauthorised encampments". English law not European but then again that doesn't matter to the angry party. I personally believe that everyone should abide by the law of the land and should not be treated any differently to anyone else.[/p][/quote]Try stopping them, removing these sites and making them abide by all the other laws we do, then you will see your EU law at work ;-) Sigurd Hoeberth
  • Score: 19

9:37pm Fri 9 May 14

unexpected error says...

Personally I think there are very few real gypsies left and the rest are using the label as an excuse to avoid living by the laws of the land the rest of us have to abide by.
Personally I think there are very few real gypsies left and the rest are using the label as an excuse to avoid living by the laws of the land the rest of us have to abide by. unexpected error
  • Score: 22

9:52pm Fri 9 May 14

notweymouth says...

How much will the site fees be for this new camp site? Can anyone use it?
How much will the site fees be for this new camp site? Can anyone use it? notweymouth
  • Score: 19

11:23pm Fri 9 May 14

Ernie the Aardvark says...

It's fair enough for councils to provide sites but they don't have to be free sites. A reasonable overnight rate should start to cover costs! AS IF
It's fair enough for councils to provide sites but they don't have to be free sites. A reasonable overnight rate should start to cover costs! AS IF Ernie the Aardvark
  • Score: 9

6:59am Sat 10 May 14

MrTomSmith says...

UKIP for me as well, its going to be an interesting year.

What I would really like to know how the heck can SIX people make this decision with a vote of 4-2 We ought to know who the four are, there is NO WAY they would be voted back in. So lets name them please.
UKIP for me as well, its going to be an interesting year. What I would really like to know how the heck can SIX people make this decision with a vote of 4-2 We ought to know who the four are, there is NO WAY they would be voted back in. So lets name them please. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 16

8:03am Sat 10 May 14

cj07589 says...

woodsedge wrote:
"In 1994 the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJPOA) was passed. The CJPOA 1994 repealed much of the CSA 1968, including the duty imposed on County Councils to provide authorised sites. Though the Section 24 CSCDA 1960 power to provide sites has been retained, central funding for the provision of such sites was withdrawn and with little incentive to use that power the number of local authority sites has fallen. At the same time the CJPOA 1994 gave both the Police and local authorities additional powers to remove Gypsies and Travellers when they park their caravans on unauthorised encampments".

English law not European but then again that doesn't matter to the angry party. I personally believe that everyone should abide by the law of the land and should not be treated any differently to anyone else.
Your actually wrong old chap it is a EU directive that forces councils to allocate sites to so called 'travellers' it's you're lovely swivel eyed lunatics on the left who support discrimination against the rest of us because we not deemed 'special' enough. But don't let that FACT stop you shouting down or labelling the electorate who want an even playing field in society and are prepared to stand by their beliefs.

Personally I feel extremely sorry for the Piddlehinton residents not withstanding the certain trouble that will follow also the property prices will take a hammering. You only need to look at the other traveller sites strewn with rubbish and the decimation of wild habitant to know what is coming. The illegal site in Bath(twerton) is a perfect example of this.
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: "In 1994 the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJPOA) was passed. The CJPOA 1994 repealed much of the CSA 1968, including the duty imposed on County Councils to provide authorised sites. Though the Section 24 CSCDA 1960 power to provide sites has been retained, central funding for the provision of such sites was withdrawn and with little incentive to use that power the number of local authority sites has fallen. At the same time the CJPOA 1994 gave both the Police and local authorities additional powers to remove Gypsies and Travellers when they park their caravans on unauthorised encampments". English law not European but then again that doesn't matter to the angry party. I personally believe that everyone should abide by the law of the land and should not be treated any differently to anyone else.[/p][/quote]Your actually wrong old chap it is a EU directive that forces councils to allocate sites to so called 'travellers' it's you're lovely swivel eyed lunatics on the left who support discrimination against the rest of us because we not deemed 'special' enough. But don't let that FACT stop you shouting down or labelling the electorate who want an even playing field in society and are prepared to stand by their beliefs. Personally I feel extremely sorry for the Piddlehinton residents not withstanding the certain trouble that will follow also the property prices will take a hammering. You only need to look at the other traveller sites strewn with rubbish and the decimation of wild habitant to know what is coming. The illegal site in Bath(twerton) is a perfect example of this. cj07589
  • Score: 10

8:33am Sat 10 May 14

woodsedge says...

cj07589 wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
"In 1994 the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJPOA) was passed. The CJPOA 1994 repealed much of the CSA 1968, including the duty imposed on County Councils to provide authorised sites. Though the Section 24 CSCDA 1960 power to provide sites has been retained, central funding for the provision of such sites was withdrawn and with little incentive to use that power the number of local authority sites has fallen. At the same time the CJPOA 1994 gave both the Police and local authorities additional powers to remove Gypsies and Travellers when they park their caravans on unauthorised encampments".

English law not European but then again that doesn't matter to the angry party. I personally believe that everyone should abide by the law of the land and should not be treated any differently to anyone else.
Your actually wrong old chap it is a EU directive that forces councils to allocate sites to so called 'travellers' it's you're lovely swivel eyed lunatics on the left who support discrimination against the rest of us because we not deemed 'special' enough. But don't let that FACT stop you shouting down or labelling the electorate who want an even playing field in society and are prepared to stand by their beliefs.

Personally I feel extremely sorry for the Piddlehinton residents not withstanding the certain trouble that will follow also the property prices will take a hammering. You only need to look at the other traveller sites strewn with rubbish and the decimation of wild habitant to know what is coming. The illegal site in Bath(twerton) is a perfect example of this.
The same sort of hot air response we always get from UKIP and it's supporters! Totally ignore the FACTS in relation to ENGLISH LAW, do not address the subject and just repeat the same old rant blaming Europe. Farage has made a career out of it and when 'cornered' on any issue he just produces the same old popular sound bites without any substance. Returning to the issue of a travellers site and the affect on local communities, I agree that sites should be with the agreement of the local community and that travellers should pay and abide by the law of the land.
[quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: "In 1994 the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJPOA) was passed. The CJPOA 1994 repealed much of the CSA 1968, including the duty imposed on County Councils to provide authorised sites. Though the Section 24 CSCDA 1960 power to provide sites has been retained, central funding for the provision of such sites was withdrawn and with little incentive to use that power the number of local authority sites has fallen. At the same time the CJPOA 1994 gave both the Police and local authorities additional powers to remove Gypsies and Travellers when they park their caravans on unauthorised encampments". English law not European but then again that doesn't matter to the angry party. I personally believe that everyone should abide by the law of the land and should not be treated any differently to anyone else.[/p][/quote]Your actually wrong old chap it is a EU directive that forces councils to allocate sites to so called 'travellers' it's you're lovely swivel eyed lunatics on the left who support discrimination against the rest of us because we not deemed 'special' enough. But don't let that FACT stop you shouting down or labelling the electorate who want an even playing field in society and are prepared to stand by their beliefs. Personally I feel extremely sorry for the Piddlehinton residents not withstanding the certain trouble that will follow also the property prices will take a hammering. You only need to look at the other traveller sites strewn with rubbish and the decimation of wild habitant to know what is coming. The illegal site in Bath(twerton) is a perfect example of this.[/p][/quote]The same sort of hot air response we always get from UKIP and it's supporters! Totally ignore the FACTS in relation to ENGLISH LAW, do not address the subject and just repeat the same old rant blaming Europe. Farage has made a career out of it and when 'cornered' on any issue he just produces the same old popular sound bites without any substance. Returning to the issue of a travellers site and the affect on local communities, I agree that sites should be with the agreement of the local community and that travellers should pay and abide by the law of the land. woodsedge
  • Score: -13

9:30am Sat 10 May 14

cj07589 says...

woodsedge wrote:
cj07589 wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
"In 1994 the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJPOA) was passed. The CJPOA 1994 repealed much of the CSA 1968, including the duty imposed on County Councils to provide authorised sites. Though the Section 24 CSCDA 1960 power to provide sites has been retained, central funding for the provision of such sites was withdrawn and with little incentive to use that power the number of local authority sites has fallen. At the same time the CJPOA 1994 gave both the Police and local authorities additional powers to remove Gypsies and Travellers when they park their caravans on unauthorised encampments".

English law not European but then again that doesn't matter to the angry party. I personally believe that everyone should abide by the law of the land and should not be treated any differently to anyone else.
Your actually wrong old chap it is a EU directive that forces councils to allocate sites to so called 'travellers' it's you're lovely swivel eyed lunatics on the left who support discrimination against the rest of us because we not deemed 'special' enough. But don't let that FACT stop you shouting down or labelling the electorate who want an even playing field in society and are prepared to stand by their beliefs.

Personally I feel extremely sorry for the Piddlehinton residents not withstanding the certain trouble that will follow also the property prices will take a hammering. You only need to look at the other traveller sites strewn with rubbish and the decimation of wild habitant to know what is coming. The illegal site in Bath(twerton) is a perfect example of this.
The same sort of hot air response we always get from UKIP and it's supporters! Totally ignore the FACTS in relation to ENGLISH LAW, do not address the subject and just repeat the same old rant blaming Europe. Farage has made a career out of it and when 'cornered' on any issue he just produces the same old popular sound bites without any substance. Returning to the issue of a travellers site and the affect on local communities, I agree that sites should be with the agreement of the local community and that travellers should pay and abide by the law of the land.
Which part of its EU legislation don't you understand, instead you choose to rant about erroneous clap trap about Farage hardly and intelligent response to national problem that affects many. Never mind don't let it get in the way of bias agenda which on the face of it is rather sad.
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: "In 1994 the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJPOA) was passed. The CJPOA 1994 repealed much of the CSA 1968, including the duty imposed on County Councils to provide authorised sites. Though the Section 24 CSCDA 1960 power to provide sites has been retained, central funding for the provision of such sites was withdrawn and with little incentive to use that power the number of local authority sites has fallen. At the same time the CJPOA 1994 gave both the Police and local authorities additional powers to remove Gypsies and Travellers when they park their caravans on unauthorised encampments". English law not European but then again that doesn't matter to the angry party. I personally believe that everyone should abide by the law of the land and should not be treated any differently to anyone else.[/p][/quote]Your actually wrong old chap it is a EU directive that forces councils to allocate sites to so called 'travellers' it's you're lovely swivel eyed lunatics on the left who support discrimination against the rest of us because we not deemed 'special' enough. But don't let that FACT stop you shouting down or labelling the electorate who want an even playing field in society and are prepared to stand by their beliefs. Personally I feel extremely sorry for the Piddlehinton residents not withstanding the certain trouble that will follow also the property prices will take a hammering. You only need to look at the other traveller sites strewn with rubbish and the decimation of wild habitant to know what is coming. The illegal site in Bath(twerton) is a perfect example of this.[/p][/quote]The same sort of hot air response we always get from UKIP and it's supporters! Totally ignore the FACTS in relation to ENGLISH LAW, do not address the subject and just repeat the same old rant blaming Europe. Farage has made a career out of it and when 'cornered' on any issue he just produces the same old popular sound bites without any substance. Returning to the issue of a travellers site and the affect on local communities, I agree that sites should be with the agreement of the local community and that travellers should pay and abide by the law of the land.[/p][/quote]Which part of its EU legislation don't you understand, instead you choose to rant about erroneous clap trap about Farage hardly and intelligent response to national problem that affects many. Never mind don't let it get in the way of bias agenda which on the face of it is rather sad. cj07589
  • Score: 9

9:36am Sat 10 May 14

woodsedge says...

cj07589 wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
cj07589 wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
"In 1994 the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJPOA) was passed. The CJPOA 1994 repealed much of the CSA 1968, including the duty imposed on County Councils to provide authorised sites. Though the Section 24 CSCDA 1960 power to provide sites has been retained, central funding for the provision of such sites was withdrawn and with little incentive to use that power the number of local authority sites has fallen. At the same time the CJPOA 1994 gave both the Police and local authorities additional powers to remove Gypsies and Travellers when they park their caravans on unauthorised encampments".

English law not European but then again that doesn't matter to the angry party. I personally believe that everyone should abide by the law of the land and should not be treated any differently to anyone else.
Your actually wrong old chap it is a EU directive that forces councils to allocate sites to so called 'travellers' it's you're lovely swivel eyed lunatics on the left who support discrimination against the rest of us because we not deemed 'special' enough. But don't let that FACT stop you shouting down or labelling the electorate who want an even playing field in society and are prepared to stand by their beliefs.

Personally I feel extremely sorry for the Piddlehinton residents not withstanding the certain trouble that will follow also the property prices will take a hammering. You only need to look at the other traveller sites strewn with rubbish and the decimation of wild habitant to know what is coming. The illegal site in Bath(twerton) is a perfect example of this.
The same sort of hot air response we always get from UKIP and it's supporters! Totally ignore the FACTS in relation to ENGLISH LAW, do not address the subject and just repeat the same old rant blaming Europe. Farage has made a career out of it and when 'cornered' on any issue he just produces the same old popular sound bites without any substance. Returning to the issue of a travellers site and the affect on local communities, I agree that sites should be with the agreement of the local community and that travellers should pay and abide by the law of the land.
Which part of its EU legislation don't you understand, instead you choose to rant about erroneous clap trap about Farage hardly and intelligent response to national problem that affects many. Never mind don't let it get in the way of bias agenda which on the face of it is rather sad.
Oh dear cj, just more rhetoric without substance so let's have another go old chap:

"The Labour Government tried to compel local planning authorities to set aside enough land for Gypsy sites, via targets in regional plans. That would complement the legal obligation in the Housing Act 2004 s.225 that every local housing authority must, when undertaking a review of housing needs in their district under section 8 of the Housing Act 1985, carry out an assessment of the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers residing in or resorting to their district. They must take this strategy into account when exercising their functions. That obligation remains in force.
After the 2010 election the new Government moved to abolish regional planning, while still expecting local planning authorities to make adequate provision for Gypsies in the area. Local authorities will have a financial incentive to provide sites because they will be allowed to retain council tax for six years, under the New Homes Bonus scheme. On 25 March 2012, the Government published the revised Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. The National Planning Policy Framework was published on 27 March 2012, but does not add to the policy in Planning Policy for Traveller Sites". Source Parliment Uk.
[quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: "In 1994 the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJPOA) was passed. The CJPOA 1994 repealed much of the CSA 1968, including the duty imposed on County Councils to provide authorised sites. Though the Section 24 CSCDA 1960 power to provide sites has been retained, central funding for the provision of such sites was withdrawn and with little incentive to use that power the number of local authority sites has fallen. At the same time the CJPOA 1994 gave both the Police and local authorities additional powers to remove Gypsies and Travellers when they park their caravans on unauthorised encampments". English law not European but then again that doesn't matter to the angry party. I personally believe that everyone should abide by the law of the land and should not be treated any differently to anyone else.[/p][/quote]Your actually wrong old chap it is a EU directive that forces councils to allocate sites to so called 'travellers' it's you're lovely swivel eyed lunatics on the left who support discrimination against the rest of us because we not deemed 'special' enough. But don't let that FACT stop you shouting down or labelling the electorate who want an even playing field in society and are prepared to stand by their beliefs. Personally I feel extremely sorry for the Piddlehinton residents not withstanding the certain trouble that will follow also the property prices will take a hammering. You only need to look at the other traveller sites strewn with rubbish and the decimation of wild habitant to know what is coming. The illegal site in Bath(twerton) is a perfect example of this.[/p][/quote]The same sort of hot air response we always get from UKIP and it's supporters! Totally ignore the FACTS in relation to ENGLISH LAW, do not address the subject and just repeat the same old rant blaming Europe. Farage has made a career out of it and when 'cornered' on any issue he just produces the same old popular sound bites without any substance. Returning to the issue of a travellers site and the affect on local communities, I agree that sites should be with the agreement of the local community and that travellers should pay and abide by the law of the land.[/p][/quote]Which part of its EU legislation don't you understand, instead you choose to rant about erroneous clap trap about Farage hardly and intelligent response to national problem that affects many. Never mind don't let it get in the way of bias agenda which on the face of it is rather sad.[/p][/quote]Oh dear cj, just more rhetoric without substance so let's have another go old chap: "The Labour Government tried to compel local planning authorities to set aside enough land for Gypsy sites, via targets in regional plans. That would complement the legal obligation in the Housing Act 2004 s.225 that every local housing authority must, when undertaking a review of housing needs in their district under section 8 of the Housing Act 1985, carry out an assessment of the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers residing in or resorting to their district. They must take this strategy into account when exercising their functions. That obligation remains in force. After the 2010 election the new Government moved to abolish regional planning, while still expecting local planning authorities to make adequate provision for Gypsies in the area. Local authorities will have a financial incentive to provide sites because they will be allowed to retain council tax for six years, under the New Homes Bonus scheme. On 25 March 2012, the Government published the revised Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. The National Planning Policy Framework was published on 27 March 2012, but does not add to the policy in Planning Policy for Traveller Sites". Source Parliment Uk. woodsedge
  • Score: -12

9:58am Sat 10 May 14

Tonyglyn says...

If one can't use the word 'gypsy' how come the Echo's own billboard today states "Gypsy Camp Fury"?

If anyone is inflaming the issue then it's the Echo itself with stuff like that plastered all over West Dorset today.
If one can't use the word 'gypsy' how come the Echo's own billboard today states "Gypsy Camp Fury"? If anyone is inflaming the issue then it's the Echo itself with stuff like that plastered all over West Dorset today. Tonyglyn
  • Score: 10

10:32am Sat 10 May 14

Sigurd Hoeberth says...

A lot of these requirements like those forcing councils to provide sites was levered in on the back of things like the EU human rights act, another tool that was designed to undermine national sovereignty. We even had "group-thinkers" of the U.N coming into the country and assisting protests on Gypsy camps against our own Government and Police forces, showing clearly how this fiddle is being bowed from outside our own country.

Even if this requirement is fulfilled, where is the law protecting the settled peoples tax burdens, after all it is they who have to foot the bill for these people not them of course. Why are their vehicles and property not confiscated to recover costs of removal and clean-ups? Our councils have constantly made our local tax payers foot the bill for these people and never recovered any of it.

It is not as if they are all going to suddenly abide by the law and use only a specified site even if it is built either.
A lot of these requirements like those forcing councils to provide sites was levered in on the back of things like the EU human rights act, another tool that was designed to undermine national sovereignty. We even had "group-thinkers" of the U.N coming into the country and assisting protests on Gypsy camps against our own Government and Police forces, showing clearly how this fiddle is being bowed from outside our own country. Even if this requirement is fulfilled, where is the law protecting the settled peoples tax burdens, after all it is they who have to foot the bill for these people not them of course. Why are their vehicles and property not confiscated to recover costs of removal and clean-ups? Our councils have constantly made our local tax payers foot the bill for these people and never recovered any of it. It is not as if they are all going to suddenly abide by the law and use only a specified site even if it is built either. Sigurd Hoeberth
  • Score: 13

11:04am Sat 10 May 14

cj07589 says...

woodsedge wrote:
cj07589 wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
cj07589 wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
"In 1994 the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJPOA) was passed. The CJPOA 1994 repealed much of the CSA 1968, including the duty imposed on County Councils to provide authorised sites. Though the Section 24 CSCDA 1960 power to provide sites has been retained, central funding for the provision of such sites was withdrawn and with little incentive to use that power the number of local authority sites has fallen. At the same time the CJPOA 1994 gave both the Police and local authorities additional powers to remove Gypsies and Travellers when they park their caravans on unauthorised encampments".

English law not European but then again that doesn't matter to the angry party. I personally believe that everyone should abide by the law of the land and should not be treated any differently to anyone else.
Your actually wrong old chap it is a EU directive that forces councils to allocate sites to so called 'travellers' it's you're lovely swivel eyed lunatics on the left who support discrimination against the rest of us because we not deemed 'special' enough. But don't let that FACT stop you shouting down or labelling the electorate who want an even playing field in society and are prepared to stand by their beliefs.

Personally I feel extremely sorry for the Piddlehinton residents not withstanding the certain trouble that will follow also the property prices will take a hammering. You only need to look at the other traveller sites strewn with rubbish and the decimation of wild habitant to know what is coming. The illegal site in Bath(twerton) is a perfect example of this.
The same sort of hot air response we always get from UKIP and it's supporters! Totally ignore the FACTS in relation to ENGLISH LAW, do not address the subject and just repeat the same old rant blaming Europe. Farage has made a career out of it and when 'cornered' on any issue he just produces the same old popular sound bites without any substance. Returning to the issue of a travellers site and the affect on local communities, I agree that sites should be with the agreement of the local community and that travellers should pay and abide by the law of the land.
Which part of its EU legislation don't you understand, instead you choose to rant about erroneous clap trap about Farage hardly and intelligent response to national problem that affects many. Never mind don't let it get in the way of bias agenda which on the face of it is rather sad.
Oh dear cj, just more rhetoric without substance so let's have another go old chap:

"The Labour Government tried to compel local planning authorities to set aside enough land for Gypsy sites, via targets in regional plans. That would complement the legal obligation in the Housing Act 2004 s.225 that every local housing authority must, when undertaking a review of housing needs in their district under section 8 of the Housing Act 1985, carry out an assessment of the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers residing in or resorting to their district. They must take this strategy into account when exercising their functions. That obligation remains in force.
After the 2010 election the new Government moved to abolish regional planning, while still expecting local planning authorities to make adequate provision for Gypsies in the area. Local authorities will have a financial incentive to provide sites because they will be allowed to retain council tax for six years, under the New Homes Bonus scheme. On 25 March 2012, the Government published the revised Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. The National Planning Policy Framework was published on 27 March 2012, but does not add to the policy in Planning Policy for Traveller Sites". Source Parliment Uk.
Really........ Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and EU equality legislation ring any bells??
Both of these heavily influenced the current bias housing act which actively seeks to marginalise the majority with the by-product of dividing communities and creating unhealthy tension that would not of otherwise existed.

Answer me this: 'Equality' infers that people of differing backgrounds are equal and are treated equally, therefore the whole premise that a particular section of people are given preferential treatment and priority I.e. land at the tax payers and communities expense is simply absurd and in a nutshell is discriminatory and counterproductive to the purpose and meaning of the Acts purpose.
There it is no surprise whatsoever that the catalyst for all of this nonsense is by the lefty morons hailing from Brussels. What is clear is the three traitor parties don't care about the average joe and there is only one party whether you like it or not that acknowledges this.

This current system is broke, if it is 'agreed EU' policy to positively favour some over the rights of others, then it is by definition 'discriminatory' which is wholly unacceptable this is why so many are annoyed and disappointed by the EUs continued failure to positively improve our way of life.
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: "In 1994 the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJPOA) was passed. The CJPOA 1994 repealed much of the CSA 1968, including the duty imposed on County Councils to provide authorised sites. Though the Section 24 CSCDA 1960 power to provide sites has been retained, central funding for the provision of such sites was withdrawn and with little incentive to use that power the number of local authority sites has fallen. At the same time the CJPOA 1994 gave both the Police and local authorities additional powers to remove Gypsies and Travellers when they park their caravans on unauthorised encampments". English law not European but then again that doesn't matter to the angry party. I personally believe that everyone should abide by the law of the land and should not be treated any differently to anyone else.[/p][/quote]Your actually wrong old chap it is a EU directive that forces councils to allocate sites to so called 'travellers' it's you're lovely swivel eyed lunatics on the left who support discrimination against the rest of us because we not deemed 'special' enough. But don't let that FACT stop you shouting down or labelling the electorate who want an even playing field in society and are prepared to stand by their beliefs. Personally I feel extremely sorry for the Piddlehinton residents not withstanding the certain trouble that will follow also the property prices will take a hammering. You only need to look at the other traveller sites strewn with rubbish and the decimation of wild habitant to know what is coming. The illegal site in Bath(twerton) is a perfect example of this.[/p][/quote]The same sort of hot air response we always get from UKIP and it's supporters! Totally ignore the FACTS in relation to ENGLISH LAW, do not address the subject and just repeat the same old rant blaming Europe. Farage has made a career out of it and when 'cornered' on any issue he just produces the same old popular sound bites without any substance. Returning to the issue of a travellers site and the affect on local communities, I agree that sites should be with the agreement of the local community and that travellers should pay and abide by the law of the land.[/p][/quote]Which part of its EU legislation don't you understand, instead you choose to rant about erroneous clap trap about Farage hardly and intelligent response to national problem that affects many. Never mind don't let it get in the way of bias agenda which on the face of it is rather sad.[/p][/quote]Oh dear cj, just more rhetoric without substance so let's have another go old chap: "The Labour Government tried to compel local planning authorities to set aside enough land for Gypsy sites, via targets in regional plans. That would complement the legal obligation in the Housing Act 2004 s.225 that every local housing authority must, when undertaking a review of housing needs in their district under section 8 of the Housing Act 1985, carry out an assessment of the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers residing in or resorting to their district. They must take this strategy into account when exercising their functions. That obligation remains in force. After the 2010 election the new Government moved to abolish regional planning, while still expecting local planning authorities to make adequate provision for Gypsies in the area. Local authorities will have a financial incentive to provide sites because they will be allowed to retain council tax for six years, under the New Homes Bonus scheme. On 25 March 2012, the Government published the revised Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. The National Planning Policy Framework was published on 27 March 2012, but does not add to the policy in Planning Policy for Traveller Sites". Source Parliment Uk.[/p][/quote]Really........ Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and EU equality legislation ring any bells?? Both of these heavily influenced the current bias housing act which actively seeks to marginalise the majority with the by-product of dividing communities and creating unhealthy tension that would not of otherwise existed. Answer me this: 'Equality' infers that people of differing backgrounds are equal and are treated equally, therefore the whole premise that a particular section of people are given preferential treatment and priority I.e. land at the tax payers and communities expense is simply absurd and in a nutshell is discriminatory and counterproductive to the purpose and meaning of the Acts purpose. There it is no surprise whatsoever that the catalyst for all of this nonsense is by the lefty morons hailing from Brussels. What is clear is the three traitor parties don't care about the average joe and there is only one party whether you like it or not that acknowledges this. This current system is broke, if it is 'agreed EU' policy to positively favour some over the rights of others, then it is by definition 'discriminatory' which is wholly unacceptable this is why so many are annoyed and disappointed by the EUs continued failure to positively improve our way of life. cj07589
  • Score: 15

11:36am Sat 10 May 14

woodsedge says...

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (formally the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was drafted in 1950. The act was actually led by the UK in response to the Fascist and communist states that caused WW2. British politicians were instrumental in drafting the ECHR, building on the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and older British common law liberties. The Uk signed up to its jurisdiction in 1966. Not the date we joined the EU in 1973.

Equality defined means the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities. We do agree that no particular group should be allowed to act outside of the law of the land including the ECHR. So if one group of society or an individual of one group is acting outside the law then they should be dealt with by the law.

The current system is broken in relation to the weak and cowardly way the police and local authorities fail in dealing with those that break the law. So in my opinion the failure is in the hands of the law breakers in this country and not the populous "let's blame Europe" brigade.
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (formally the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was drafted in 1950. The act was actually led by the UK in response to the Fascist and communist states that caused WW2. British politicians were instrumental in drafting the ECHR, building on the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and older British common law liberties. The Uk signed up to its jurisdiction in 1966. Not the date we joined the EU in 1973. Equality defined means the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities. We do agree that no particular group should be allowed to act outside of the law of the land including the ECHR. So if one group of society or an individual of one group is acting outside the law then they should be dealt with by the law. The current system is broken in relation to the weak and cowardly way the police and local authorities fail in dealing with those that break the law. So in my opinion the failure is in the hands of the law breakers in this country and not the populous "let's blame Europe" brigade. woodsedge
  • Score: -5

11:37am Sat 10 May 14

cj07589 says...

Sigurd Hoeberth wrote:
A lot of these requirements like those forcing councils to provide sites was levered in on the back of things like the EU human rights act, another tool that was designed to undermine national sovereignty. We even had "group-thinkers
" of the U.N coming into the country and assisting protests on Gypsy camps against our own Government and Police forces, showing clearly how this fiddle is being bowed from outside our own country.

Even if this requirement is fulfilled, where is the law protecting the settled peoples tax burdens, after all it is they who have to foot the bill for these people not them of course. Why are their vehicles and property not confiscated to recover costs of removal and clean-ups? Our councils have constantly made our local tax payers foot the bill for these people and never recovered any of it.

It is not as if they are all going to suddenly abide by the law and use only a specified site even if it is built either.
Yes, how the hell did the country sleepwalk into a situation where certain sections of society receive preferential treatment is worrying no surprise that nasty labour allowed in to sweep in under the radar and leave the plebes to deal with the consequences.
I'd love a patch of land to live in the lovely Dorset countryside to camp/live on especially if someone else is paying for the pleasure. I have no problems with providing for those less off in our society but find it quite frankly insulting to fund this lots 'special' rights and lifestyle choice. I blame both liebour and the EU i don't expect we see a traveller site being located next to Oliver letwin or Mr Goulds residence then why should it be forced on others in a equal and fair society.
Clearly as per the culture in Westminster and wider European politics some are more important than others and they wonder why they are all despised and mistrusted so much.
[quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoeberth[/bold] wrote: A lot of these requirements like those forcing councils to provide sites was levered in on the back of things like the EU human rights act, another tool that was designed to undermine national sovereignty. We even had "group-thinkers " of the U.N coming into the country and assisting protests on Gypsy camps against our own Government and Police forces, showing clearly how this fiddle is being bowed from outside our own country. Even if this requirement is fulfilled, where is the law protecting the settled peoples tax burdens, after all it is they who have to foot the bill for these people not them of course. Why are their vehicles and property not confiscated to recover costs of removal and clean-ups? Our councils have constantly made our local tax payers foot the bill for these people and never recovered any of it. It is not as if they are all going to suddenly abide by the law and use only a specified site even if it is built either.[/p][/quote]Yes, how the hell did the country sleepwalk into a situation where certain sections of society receive preferential treatment is worrying no surprise that nasty labour allowed in to sweep in under the radar and leave the plebes to deal with the consequences. I'd love a patch of land to live in the lovely Dorset countryside to camp/live on especially if someone else is paying for the pleasure. I have no problems with providing for those less off in our society but find it quite frankly insulting to fund this lots 'special' rights and lifestyle choice. I blame both liebour and the EU i don't expect we see a traveller site being located next to Oliver letwin or Mr Goulds residence then why should it be forced on others in a equal and fair society. Clearly as per the culture in Westminster and wider European politics some are more important than others and they wonder why they are all despised and mistrusted so much. cj07589
  • Score: 12

11:40am Sat 10 May 14

Sigurd Hoeberth says...

Like most things the people believed we signed up to in the EU a long time ago Woodsedge, the dictating and manipulative monstrosity it has become today has very little resemblance to what it was back then.

This is exactly why we need out of it.
Like most things the people believed we signed up to in the EU a long time ago Woodsedge, the dictating and manipulative monstrosity it has become today has very little resemblance to what it was back then. This is exactly why we need out of it. Sigurd Hoeberth
  • Score: 10

11:42am Sat 10 May 14

cj07589 says...

woodsedge wrote:
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (formally the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was drafted in 1950. The act was actually led by the UK in response to the Fascist and communist states that caused WW2. British politicians were instrumental in drafting the ECHR, building on the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and older British common law liberties. The Uk signed up to its jurisdiction in 1966. Not the date we joined the EU in 1973.

Equality defined means the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities. We do agree that no particular group should be allowed to act outside of the law of the land including the ECHR. So if one group of society or an individual of one group is acting outside the law then they should be dealt with by the law.

The current system is broken in relation to the weak and cowardly way the police and local authorities fail in dealing with those that break the law. So in my opinion the failure is in the hands of the law breakers in this country and not the populous "let's blame Europe" brigade.
Let's just say we agree to disagree on certain points and detail however don't get me started on ECHR nonsense as that's another kettle of fish altogether.
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (formally the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was drafted in 1950. The act was actually led by the UK in response to the Fascist and communist states that caused WW2. British politicians were instrumental in drafting the ECHR, building on the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and older British common law liberties. The Uk signed up to its jurisdiction in 1966. Not the date we joined the EU in 1973. Equality defined means the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities. We do agree that no particular group should be allowed to act outside of the law of the land including the ECHR. So if one group of society or an individual of one group is acting outside the law then they should be dealt with by the law. The current system is broken in relation to the weak and cowardly way the police and local authorities fail in dealing with those that break the law. So in my opinion the failure is in the hands of the law breakers in this country and not the populous "let's blame Europe" brigade.[/p][/quote]Let's just say we agree to disagree on certain points and detail however don't get me started on ECHR nonsense as that's another kettle of fish altogether. cj07589
  • Score: 4

11:59am Sat 10 May 14

cj07589 says...

Sigurd Hoeberth wrote:
Like most things the people believed we signed up to in the EU a long time ago Woodsedge, the dictating and manipulative monstrosity it has become today has very little resemblance to what it was back then.

This is exactly why we need out of it.
I agree the EU represents nothing but trouble and division. They can't even balance the annual financial accounts due all the corruption notwithstanding Europeans generally don't have a lot of time or tolerance for us.
I noticed on the pro-EU bias question time debate on Thursday evening the only argument the swivel eyed loonies had in favour of the EU feeding unsubstantiated fear that jobs and the economy will be negatively affected if we left the EU. Proved factually incorrect and proved by Norway and Switzerland having bustling economies and job opportunities outside of the EU fantasy.
The only other argument raised was it was advantageous in trading and foreign affairs negotiations. Proved incorrect since the EU fail to agree to anything between them due the many different points of views and national interests at play. Exemplified by the recent Ukraine crisis where the EU has not only flamed the fire but comprehensively failed to negotiate a peaceful resolution despite Britain being heavily reliant on Russia energy. All in all its a right bloody mess and we'd be better off trading with the rest of the world and managing our affairs in Britain's and the commonwealths best interests.
[quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoeberth[/bold] wrote: Like most things the people believed we signed up to in the EU a long time ago Woodsedge, the dictating and manipulative monstrosity it has become today has very little resemblance to what it was back then. This is exactly why we need out of it.[/p][/quote]I agree the EU represents nothing but trouble and division. They can't even balance the annual financial accounts due all the corruption notwithstanding Europeans generally don't have a lot of time or tolerance for us. I noticed on the pro-EU bias question time debate on Thursday evening the only argument the swivel eyed loonies had in favour of the EU feeding unsubstantiated fear that jobs and the economy will be negatively affected if we left the EU. Proved factually incorrect and proved by Norway and Switzerland having bustling economies and job opportunities outside of the EU fantasy. The only other argument raised was it was advantageous in trading and foreign affairs negotiations. Proved incorrect since the EU fail to agree to anything between them due the many different points of views and national interests at play. Exemplified by the recent Ukraine crisis where the EU has not only flamed the fire but comprehensively failed to negotiate a peaceful resolution despite Britain being heavily reliant on Russia energy. All in all its a right bloody mess and we'd be better off trading with the rest of the world and managing our affairs in Britain's and the commonwealths best interests. cj07589
  • Score: 5

12:06pm Sat 10 May 14

Sigurd Hoeberth says...

cj07589 wrote:
Sigurd Hoeberth wrote:
Like most things the people believed we signed up to in the EU a long time ago Woodsedge, the dictating and manipulative monstrosity it has become today has very little resemblance to what it was back then.

This is exactly why we need out of it.
I agree the EU represents nothing but trouble and division. They can't even balance the annual financial accounts due all the corruption notwithstanding Europeans generally don't have a lot of time or tolerance for us.
I noticed on the pro-EU bias question time debate on Thursday evening the only argument the swivel eyed loonies had in favour of the EU feeding unsubstantiated fear that jobs and the economy will be negatively affected if we left the EU. Proved factually incorrect and proved by Norway and Switzerland having bustling economies and job opportunities outside of the EU fantasy.
The only other argument raised was it was advantageous in trading and foreign affairs negotiations. Proved incorrect since the EU fail to agree to anything between them due the many different points of views and national interests at play. Exemplified by the recent Ukraine crisis where the EU has not only flamed the fire but comprehensively failed to negotiate a peaceful resolution despite Britain being heavily reliant on Russia energy. All in all its a right bloody mess and we'd be better off trading with the rest of the world and managing our affairs in Britain's and the commonwealths best interests.
I think Question time was magnificent and proved beyond all doubt that the other parties are lying through their teeth to the electorate, especially Labour in this case, they all tried to shout and scream over Farage about the Pfizer deal and who really had the power over our own government on it.

I have still yet to see any reason why all the feeble arguments they come up with, from arrest warrants to climate change, cannot still be accomplished without the need for us to be in the EU and dictated to by Brussels. Nobody has yet has given any reason why that cannot be done.
[quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoeberth[/bold] wrote: Like most things the people believed we signed up to in the EU a long time ago Woodsedge, the dictating and manipulative monstrosity it has become today has very little resemblance to what it was back then. This is exactly why we need out of it.[/p][/quote]I agree the EU represents nothing but trouble and division. They can't even balance the annual financial accounts due all the corruption notwithstanding Europeans generally don't have a lot of time or tolerance for us. I noticed on the pro-EU bias question time debate on Thursday evening the only argument the swivel eyed loonies had in favour of the EU feeding unsubstantiated fear that jobs and the economy will be negatively affected if we left the EU. Proved factually incorrect and proved by Norway and Switzerland having bustling economies and job opportunities outside of the EU fantasy. The only other argument raised was it was advantageous in trading and foreign affairs negotiations. Proved incorrect since the EU fail to agree to anything between them due the many different points of views and national interests at play. Exemplified by the recent Ukraine crisis where the EU has not only flamed the fire but comprehensively failed to negotiate a peaceful resolution despite Britain being heavily reliant on Russia energy. All in all its a right bloody mess and we'd be better off trading with the rest of the world and managing our affairs in Britain's and the commonwealths best interests.[/p][/quote]I think Question time was magnificent and proved beyond all doubt that the other parties are lying through their teeth to the electorate, especially Labour in this case, they all tried to shout and scream over Farage about the Pfizer deal and who really had the power over our own government on it. I have still yet to see any reason why all the feeble arguments they come up with, from arrest warrants to climate change, cannot still be accomplished without the need for us to be in the EU and dictated to by Brussels. Nobody has yet has given any reason why that cannot be done. Sigurd Hoeberth
  • Score: 6

12:16pm Sat 10 May 14

cj07589 says...

Nobody has yet has given any reason why that cannot be done.

Yes being a cynic from experience the only logical explanation is the 'establishment' have a vested interest in not allowing/enabling it to happen.

I'm glad a lot more are seeing the system for what it truly is and sub servant representative self interests.
Nobody has yet has given any reason why that cannot be done. Yes being a cynic from experience the only logical explanation is the 'establishment' have a vested interest in not allowing/enabling it to happen. I'm glad a lot more are seeing the system for what it truly is and sub servant representative self interests. cj07589
  • Score: 6

12:32pm Sat 10 May 14

cj07589 says...

Sigurd Hoeberth wrote:
cj07589 wrote:
Sigurd Hoeberth wrote:
Like most things the people believed we signed up to in the EU a long time ago Woodsedge, the dictating and manipulative monstrosity it has become today has very little resemblance to what it was back then.

This is exactly why we need out of it.
I agree the EU represents nothing but trouble and division. They can't even balance the annual financial accounts due all the corruption notwithstanding Europeans generally don't have a lot of time or tolerance for us.
I noticed on the pro-EU bias question time debate on Thursday evening the only argument the swivel eyed loonies had in favour of the EU feeding unsubstantiated fear that jobs and the economy will be negatively affected if we left the EU. Proved factually incorrect and proved by Norway and Switzerland having bustling economies and job opportunities outside of the EU fantasy.
The only other argument raised was it was advantageous in trading and foreign affairs negotiations. Proved incorrect since the EU fail to agree to anything between them due the many different points of views and national interests at play. Exemplified by the recent Ukraine crisis where the EU has not only flamed the fire but comprehensively failed to negotiate a peaceful resolution despite Britain being heavily reliant on Russia energy. All in all its a right bloody mess and we'd be better off trading with the rest of the world and managing our affairs in Britain's and the commonwealths best interests.
I think Question time was magnificent and proved beyond all doubt that the other parties are lying through their teeth to the electorate, especially Labour in this case, they all tried to shout and scream over Farage about the Pfizer deal and who really had the power over our own government on it.

I have still yet to see any reason why all the feeble arguments they come up with, from arrest warrants to climate change, cannot still be accomplished without the need for us to be in the EU and dictated to by Brussels. Nobody has yet has given any reason why that cannot be done.
Yes especially loved the greens representative Shirley Williams, astonishing that they even have a MP! I thought it was very poignant that both Grant Shapps MP and Labour's shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna choose to shout and talk over Nigel largely because hd was talking the truth and none of them wanted to hear it.
They are going to get such a thumping at the next GE, perhaps we've turned the corner we shall see in just under two weeks time.
[quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoeberth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoeberth[/bold] wrote: Like most things the people believed we signed up to in the EU a long time ago Woodsedge, the dictating and manipulative monstrosity it has become today has very little resemblance to what it was back then. This is exactly why we need out of it.[/p][/quote]I agree the EU represents nothing but trouble and division. They can't even balance the annual financial accounts due all the corruption notwithstanding Europeans generally don't have a lot of time or tolerance for us. I noticed on the pro-EU bias question time debate on Thursday evening the only argument the swivel eyed loonies had in favour of the EU feeding unsubstantiated fear that jobs and the economy will be negatively affected if we left the EU. Proved factually incorrect and proved by Norway and Switzerland having bustling economies and job opportunities outside of the EU fantasy. The only other argument raised was it was advantageous in trading and foreign affairs negotiations. Proved incorrect since the EU fail to agree to anything between them due the many different points of views and national interests at play. Exemplified by the recent Ukraine crisis where the EU has not only flamed the fire but comprehensively failed to negotiate a peaceful resolution despite Britain being heavily reliant on Russia energy. All in all its a right bloody mess and we'd be better off trading with the rest of the world and managing our affairs in Britain's and the commonwealths best interests.[/p][/quote]I think Question time was magnificent and proved beyond all doubt that the other parties are lying through their teeth to the electorate, especially Labour in this case, they all tried to shout and scream over Farage about the Pfizer deal and who really had the power over our own government on it. I have still yet to see any reason why all the feeble arguments they come up with, from arrest warrants to climate change, cannot still be accomplished without the need for us to be in the EU and dictated to by Brussels. Nobody has yet has given any reason why that cannot be done.[/p][/quote]Yes especially loved the greens representative Shirley Williams, astonishing that they even have a MP! I thought it was very poignant that both Grant Shapps MP and Labour's shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna choose to shout and talk over Nigel largely because hd was talking the truth and none of them wanted to hear it. They are going to get such a thumping at the next GE, perhaps we've turned the corner we shall see in just under two weeks time. cj07589
  • Score: 5

12:44pm Sat 10 May 14

Sigurd Hoeberth says...

cj07589 wrote:
Sigurd Hoeberth wrote:
cj07589 wrote:
Sigurd Hoeberth wrote:
Like most things the people believed we signed up to in the EU a long time ago Woodsedge, the dictating and manipulative monstrosity it has become today has very little resemblance to what it was back then.

This is exactly why we need out of it.
I agree the EU represents nothing but trouble and division. They can't even balance the annual financial accounts due all the corruption notwithstanding Europeans generally don't have a lot of time or tolerance for us.
I noticed on the pro-EU bias question time debate on Thursday evening the only argument the swivel eyed loonies had in favour of the EU feeding unsubstantiated fear that jobs and the economy will be negatively affected if we left the EU. Proved factually incorrect and proved by Norway and Switzerland having bustling economies and job opportunities outside of the EU fantasy.
The only other argument raised was it was advantageous in trading and foreign affairs negotiations. Proved incorrect since the EU fail to agree to anything between them due the many different points of views and national interests at play. Exemplified by the recent Ukraine crisis where the EU has not only flamed the fire but comprehensively failed to negotiate a peaceful resolution despite Britain being heavily reliant on Russia energy. All in all its a right bloody mess and we'd be better off trading with the rest of the world and managing our affairs in Britain's and the commonwealths best interests.
I think Question time was magnificent and proved beyond all doubt that the other parties are lying through their teeth to the electorate, especially Labour in this case, they all tried to shout and scream over Farage about the Pfizer deal and who really had the power over our own government on it.

I have still yet to see any reason why all the feeble arguments they come up with, from arrest warrants to climate change, cannot still be accomplished without the need for us to be in the EU and dictated to by Brussels. Nobody has yet has given any reason why that cannot be done.
Yes especially loved the greens representative Shirley Williams, astonishing that they even have a MP! I thought it was very poignant that both Grant Shapps MP and Labour's shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna choose to shout and talk over Nigel largely because hd was talking the truth and none of them wanted to hear it.
They are going to get such a thumping at the next GE, perhaps we've turned the corner we shall see in just under two weeks time.
Shirley was Lib-Dem, the Greens lady i cannot even remember her name to be honest, a bit of a non-entity, but probably the better of the"others" on the night to be fair.?
[quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoeberth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoeberth[/bold] wrote: Like most things the people believed we signed up to in the EU a long time ago Woodsedge, the dictating and manipulative monstrosity it has become today has very little resemblance to what it was back then. This is exactly why we need out of it.[/p][/quote]I agree the EU represents nothing but trouble and division. They can't even balance the annual financial accounts due all the corruption notwithstanding Europeans generally don't have a lot of time or tolerance for us. I noticed on the pro-EU bias question time debate on Thursday evening the only argument the swivel eyed loonies had in favour of the EU feeding unsubstantiated fear that jobs and the economy will be negatively affected if we left the EU. Proved factually incorrect and proved by Norway and Switzerland having bustling economies and job opportunities outside of the EU fantasy. The only other argument raised was it was advantageous in trading and foreign affairs negotiations. Proved incorrect since the EU fail to agree to anything between them due the many different points of views and national interests at play. Exemplified by the recent Ukraine crisis where the EU has not only flamed the fire but comprehensively failed to negotiate a peaceful resolution despite Britain being heavily reliant on Russia energy. All in all its a right bloody mess and we'd be better off trading with the rest of the world and managing our affairs in Britain's and the commonwealths best interests.[/p][/quote]I think Question time was magnificent and proved beyond all doubt that the other parties are lying through their teeth to the electorate, especially Labour in this case, they all tried to shout and scream over Farage about the Pfizer deal and who really had the power over our own government on it. I have still yet to see any reason why all the feeble arguments they come up with, from arrest warrants to climate change, cannot still be accomplished without the need for us to be in the EU and dictated to by Brussels. Nobody has yet has given any reason why that cannot be done.[/p][/quote]Yes especially loved the greens representative Shirley Williams, astonishing that they even have a MP! I thought it was very poignant that both Grant Shapps MP and Labour's shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna choose to shout and talk over Nigel largely because hd was talking the truth and none of them wanted to hear it. They are going to get such a thumping at the next GE, perhaps we've turned the corner we shall see in just under two weeks time.[/p][/quote]Shirley was Lib-Dem, the Greens lady i cannot even remember her name to be honest, a bit of a non-entity, but probably the better of the"others" on the night to be fair.? Sigurd Hoeberth
  • Score: 6

12:54pm Sat 10 May 14

cj07589 says...

Sigurd Hoeberth wrote:
cj07589 wrote:
Sigurd Hoeberth wrote:
cj07589 wrote:
Sigurd Hoeberth wrote:
Like most things the people believed we signed up to in the EU a long time ago Woodsedge, the dictating and manipulative monstrosity it has become today has very little resemblance to what it was back then.

This is exactly why we need out of it.
I agree the EU represents nothing but trouble and division. They can't even balance the annual financial accounts due all the corruption notwithstanding Europeans generally don't have a lot of time or tolerance for us.
I noticed on the pro-EU bias question time debate on Thursday evening the only argument the swivel eyed loonies had in favour of the EU feeding unsubstantiated fear that jobs and the economy will be negatively affected if we left the EU. Proved factually incorrect and proved by Norway and Switzerland having bustling economies and job opportunities outside of the EU fantasy.
The only other argument raised was it was advantageous in trading and foreign affairs negotiations. Proved incorrect since the EU fail to agree to anything between them due the many different points of views and national interests at play. Exemplified by the recent Ukraine crisis where the EU has not only flamed the fire but comprehensively failed to negotiate a peaceful resolution despite Britain being heavily reliant on Russia energy. All in all its a right bloody mess and we'd be better off trading with the rest of the world and managing our affairs in Britain's and the commonwealths best interests.
I think Question time was magnificent and proved beyond all doubt that the other parties are lying through their teeth to the electorate, especially Labour in this case, they all tried to shout and scream over Farage about the Pfizer deal and who really had the power over our own government on it.

I have still yet to see any reason why all the feeble arguments they come up with, from arrest warrants to climate change, cannot still be accomplished without the need for us to be in the EU and dictated to by Brussels. Nobody has yet has given any reason why that cannot be done.
Yes especially loved the greens representative Shirley Williams, astonishing that they even have a MP! I thought it was very poignant that both Grant Shapps MP and Labour's shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna choose to shout and talk over Nigel largely because hd was talking the truth and none of them wanted to hear it.
They are going to get such a thumping at the next GE, perhaps we've turned the corner we shall see in just under two weeks time.
Shirley was Lib-Dem, the Greens lady i cannot even remember her name to be honest, a bit of a non-entity, but probably the better of the"others" on the night to be fair.?
Yes indeed the greenie wasn't as painful as the others in all fairness. I'm off now to enjoy the w/e as a second rate citizen! Clearly I must be doing something wrong and need re-education in the ways of the 'system'
Have a good one!
[quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoeberth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoeberth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoeberth[/bold] wrote: Like most things the people believed we signed up to in the EU a long time ago Woodsedge, the dictating and manipulative monstrosity it has become today has very little resemblance to what it was back then. This is exactly why we need out of it.[/p][/quote]I agree the EU represents nothing but trouble and division. They can't even balance the annual financial accounts due all the corruption notwithstanding Europeans generally don't have a lot of time or tolerance for us. I noticed on the pro-EU bias question time debate on Thursday evening the only argument the swivel eyed loonies had in favour of the EU feeding unsubstantiated fear that jobs and the economy will be negatively affected if we left the EU. Proved factually incorrect and proved by Norway and Switzerland having bustling economies and job opportunities outside of the EU fantasy. The only other argument raised was it was advantageous in trading and foreign affairs negotiations. Proved incorrect since the EU fail to agree to anything between them due the many different points of views and national interests at play. Exemplified by the recent Ukraine crisis where the EU has not only flamed the fire but comprehensively failed to negotiate a peaceful resolution despite Britain being heavily reliant on Russia energy. All in all its a right bloody mess and we'd be better off trading with the rest of the world and managing our affairs in Britain's and the commonwealths best interests.[/p][/quote]I think Question time was magnificent and proved beyond all doubt that the other parties are lying through their teeth to the electorate, especially Labour in this case, they all tried to shout and scream over Farage about the Pfizer deal and who really had the power over our own government on it. I have still yet to see any reason why all the feeble arguments they come up with, from arrest warrants to climate change, cannot still be accomplished without the need for us to be in the EU and dictated to by Brussels. Nobody has yet has given any reason why that cannot be done.[/p][/quote]Yes especially loved the greens representative Shirley Williams, astonishing that they even have a MP! I thought it was very poignant that both Grant Shapps MP and Labour's shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna choose to shout and talk over Nigel largely because hd was talking the truth and none of them wanted to hear it. They are going to get such a thumping at the next GE, perhaps we've turned the corner we shall see in just under two weeks time.[/p][/quote]Shirley was Lib-Dem, the Greens lady i cannot even remember her name to be honest, a bit of a non-entity, but probably the better of the"others" on the night to be fair.?[/p][/quote]Yes indeed the greenie wasn't as painful as the others in all fairness. I'm off now to enjoy the w/e as a second rate citizen! Clearly I must be doing something wrong and need re-education in the ways of the 'system' Have a good one! cj07589
  • Score: 6

1:50pm Sat 10 May 14

woodsedge says...

The "Green lady" was in fact Caroline Lucas and I felt that out of everyone on the panel, she was the only one who spoke any sense. The rest of the panel were an embarrassment to the political mainstream parties of the UK.
The "Green lady" was in fact Caroline Lucas and I felt that out of everyone on the panel, she was the only one who spoke any sense. The rest of the panel were an embarrassment to the political mainstream parties of the UK. woodsedge
  • Score: -6

2:19pm Sat 10 May 14

Sigurd Hoeberth says...

Problem is with the greens, they are just another liberal front in reality, too many swivel-eyed left in it. I view her promise to give an in-out referendum on Europe about as honest as Cameron's was a few years back. Nothing more than a vote grabber is all that was to try and steal a bit from others who will.. I'm not against certain green ideals though, especially anything to do with self-sufficiency in energy that does not require paying tax or paying some corporate, I just got my bills...WTF !!
Problem is with the greens, they are just another liberal front in reality, too many swivel-eyed left in it. I view her promise to give an in-out referendum on Europe about as honest as Cameron's was a few years back. Nothing more than a vote grabber is all that was to try and steal a bit from others who will.. I'm not against certain green ideals though, especially anything to do with self-sufficiency in energy that does not require paying tax or paying some corporate, I just got my bills...WTF !! Sigurd Hoeberth
  • Score: 4

2:37pm Sat 10 May 14

MrTomSmith says...

Can you say WTF? If we can't use the G Word can we use the WTF words :-)
LOL NFC LMAO and KOTFG and that stars Kick Out...........
Can you say WTF? If we can't use the G Word can we use the WTF words :-) LOL NFC LMAO and KOTFG and that stars Kick Out........... MrTomSmith
  • Score: 5

2:47pm Sat 10 May 14

Sigurd Hoeberth says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
Can you say WTF? If we can't use the G Word can we use the WTF words :-)
LOL NFC LMAO and KOTFG and that stars Kick Out...........
Oh I say !!!! Someone get the thought police !!!
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: Can you say WTF? If we can't use the G Word can we use the WTF words :-) LOL NFC LMAO and KOTFG and that stars Kick Out...........[/p][/quote]Oh I say !!!! Someone get the thought police !!! Sigurd Hoeberth
  • Score: 1

3:05pm Sat 10 May 14

dogloverdorset says...

cj07589 wrote:
Law abiding folk shafted once again. I would request a judicial review ASAP doesn't cost a lot and in the short term will secure a bit more peace and security in the interim. Please note that you need to apply for judicial review at the earliest opportunity after approval is granted this must be submitted ideally within 4weeks and no later than 6weeks from the dated consent. Good luck I will wish you every success in fighting for the human rights of law abiding tax paying citizens.
? Why the presumption that travellers are not law abiding?

By denying them a place to camp, we make them illegal, yet they were here long before the enterprise park... since 1548 in Dorset actually ! Now they have a place to go, there will be a reduction in illegal encampments, plus evidence shows that when an area has a transit site, the minority of travellers that wish to camp illegally leave the area... Poole will no doubt regret turning down its site !

You would have to be really really dumb to know that you were scrutinized more than any other group in society, and go on a crime spree....
[quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: Law abiding folk shafted once again. I would request a judicial review ASAP doesn't cost a lot and in the short term will secure a bit more peace and security in the interim. Please note that you need to apply for judicial review at the earliest opportunity after approval is granted this must be submitted ideally within 4weeks and no later than 6weeks from the dated consent. Good luck I will wish you every success in fighting for the human rights of law abiding tax paying citizens.[/p][/quote]? Why the presumption that travellers are not law abiding? By denying them a place to camp, we make them illegal, yet they were here long before the enterprise park... since 1548 in Dorset actually ! Now they have a place to go, there will be a reduction in illegal encampments, plus evidence shows that when an area has a transit site, the minority of travellers that wish to camp illegally leave the area... Poole will no doubt regret turning down its site ! You would have to be really really dumb to know that you were scrutinized more than any other group in society, and go on a crime spree.... dogloverdorset
  • Score: -5

3:21pm Sat 10 May 14

cj07589 says...

dogloverdorset wrote:
cj07589 wrote:
Law abiding folk shafted once again. I would request a judicial review ASAP doesn't cost a lot and in the short term will secure a bit more peace and security in the interim. Please note that you need to apply for judicial review at the earliest opportunity after approval is granted this must be submitted ideally within 4weeks and no later than 6weeks from the dated consent. Good luck I will wish you every success in fighting for the human rights of law abiding tax paying citizens.
? Why the presumption that travellers are not law abiding?

By denying them a place to camp, we make them illegal, yet they were here long before the enterprise park... since 1548 in Dorset actually ! Now they have a place to go, there will be a reduction in illegal encampments, plus evidence shows that when an area has a transit site, the minority of travellers that wish to camp illegally leave the area... Poole will no doubt regret turning down its site !

You would have to be really really dumb to know that you were scrutinized more than any other group in society, and go on a crime spree....
Where did I say travellers are not law abiding? I don't appreciate being misrepresented there is enough disinformation on here without you adding to it thank you very much!
[quote][p][bold]dogloverdorset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: Law abiding folk shafted once again. I would request a judicial review ASAP doesn't cost a lot and in the short term will secure a bit more peace and security in the interim. Please note that you need to apply for judicial review at the earliest opportunity after approval is granted this must be submitted ideally within 4weeks and no later than 6weeks from the dated consent. Good luck I will wish you every success in fighting for the human rights of law abiding tax paying citizens.[/p][/quote]? Why the presumption that travellers are not law abiding? By denying them a place to camp, we make them illegal, yet they were here long before the enterprise park... since 1548 in Dorset actually ! Now they have a place to go, there will be a reduction in illegal encampments, plus evidence shows that when an area has a transit site, the minority of travellers that wish to camp illegally leave the area... Poole will no doubt regret turning down its site ! You would have to be really really dumb to know that you were scrutinized more than any other group in society, and go on a crime spree....[/p][/quote]Where did I say travellers are not law abiding? I don't appreciate being misrepresented there is enough disinformation on here without you adding to it thank you very much! cj07589
  • Score: 8

3:30pm Sat 10 May 14

Sigurd Hoeberth says...

I want to know how much they will have to pay to use a site that the tax payers have paid for?

Surely It would be complete discrimination if ordinary people cannot park their nice tidy Motor-homes or caravans ( that they worked very hard and payed tax to earn) anywhere they like and have to use mostly lawful designated sites at around £20-£25 per day, surely they are planning to charge these travelers for its use?

Does anyone know the answer to this?
I want to know how much they will have to pay to use a site that the tax payers have paid for? Surely It would be complete discrimination if ordinary people cannot park their nice tidy Motor-homes or caravans ( that they worked very hard and payed tax to earn) anywhere they like and have to use mostly lawful designated sites at around £20-£25 per day, surely they are planning to charge these travelers for its use? Does anyone know the answer to this? Sigurd Hoeberth
  • Score: 14

3:45pm Sat 10 May 14

cj07589 says...

Sigurd Hoeberth wrote:
I want to know how much they will have to pay to use a site that the tax payers have paid for?

Surely It would be complete discrimination if ordinary people cannot park their nice tidy Motor-homes or caravans ( that they worked very hard and payed tax to earn) anywhere they like and have to use mostly lawful designated sites at around £20-£25 per day, surely they are planning to charge these travelers for its use?

Does anyone know the answer to this?
Argh yes but as we know discrimination only works one way! I don't understand why they don't just use caravan parks/sites on a pay for use basis like the rest of us plebes.
[quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoeberth[/bold] wrote: I want to know how much they will have to pay to use a site that the tax payers have paid for? Surely It would be complete discrimination if ordinary people cannot park their nice tidy Motor-homes or caravans ( that they worked very hard and payed tax to earn) anywhere they like and have to use mostly lawful designated sites at around £20-£25 per day, surely they are planning to charge these travelers for its use? Does anyone know the answer to this?[/p][/quote]Argh yes but as we know discrimination only works one way! I don't understand why they don't just use caravan parks/sites on a pay for use basis like the rest of us plebes. cj07589
  • Score: 9

3:57pm Sat 10 May 14

Sigurd Hoeberth says...

There can be no question that it would be a blatant discrimination against and prejudice to the settled community if they do not charge them the going rate or at the very least a rate which covers the costs of all administartion, construction and maintenance of such sites, especially when it is the settled community that is footing their bill.

I honestly want someone to give me an answer for this and explain why none of our Councillors and M.P's are not demanding it ?
There can be no question that it would be a blatant discrimination against and prejudice to the settled community if they do not charge them the going rate or at the very least a rate which covers the costs of all administartion, construction and maintenance of such sites, especially when it is the settled community that is footing their bill. I honestly want someone to give me an answer for this and explain why none of our Councillors and M.P's are not demanding it ? Sigurd Hoeberth
  • Score: 9

4:17pm Sat 10 May 14

trymybest says...

Most of our unwanted visiters are from Bloxham and Oxford travellers sites, on a windup tour.
Most of our unwanted visiters are from Bloxham and Oxford travellers sites, on a windup tour. trymybest
  • Score: 5

4:43pm Sat 10 May 14

Weston7 says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
You can't use the "G" word how ridiculous is that.
Do you mean gypsy?
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: You can't use the "G" word how ridiculous is that.[/p][/quote]Do you mean gypsy? Weston7
  • Score: 9

6:34pm Sat 10 May 14

TenBobDylanThomasHardy says...

notweymouth wrote:
How much will the site fees be for this new camp site? Can anyone use it?
Must be availaible to everyone, otherwise it's blatant Racism?
[quote][p][bold]notweymouth[/bold] wrote: How much will the site fees be for this new camp site? Can anyone use it?[/p][/quote]Must be availaible to everyone, otherwise it's blatant Racism? TenBobDylanThomasHardy
  • Score: 8

8:02pm Sat 10 May 14

cosmick says...

Dont forget they do tarmac jobs and dump there rubbish in our country side , if people stopped giveing these people jobs when they knock on your door they may not come here.
Dont forget they do tarmac jobs and dump there rubbish in our country side , if people stopped giveing these people jobs when they knock on your door they may not come here. cosmick
  • Score: 2

9:36pm Sat 10 May 14

JamesYoung says...

dogloverdorset wrote:
cj07589 wrote:
Law abiding folk shafted once again. I would request a judicial review ASAP doesn't cost a lot and in the short term will secure a bit more peace and security in the interim. Please note that you need to apply for judicial review at the earliest opportunity after approval is granted this must be submitted ideally within 4weeks and no later than 6weeks from the dated consent. Good luck I will wish you every success in fighting for the human rights of law abiding tax paying citizens.
? Why the presumption that travellers are not law abiding?

By denying them a place to camp, we make them illegal, yet they were here long before the enterprise park... since 1548 in Dorset actually ! Now they have a place to go, there will be a reduction in illegal encampments, plus evidence shows that when an area has a transit site, the minority of travellers that wish to camp illegally leave the area... Poole will no doubt regret turning down its site !

You would have to be really really dumb to know that you were scrutinized more than any other group in society, and go on a crime spree....
I think you need to make a big distinction between the Roma/Romany/Sinti "gypsies" that have indeed existed in Britain for centuries, and the relatively recent influx of Irish itinerants.
I have little exposure to true gypsies, but it is absolutely fair to say that Irish Travellers are not law abiding.
For example, it is against the law to fly tip. Travellers leave rubbish behind them wherever they go.
It is against the law to trespass on private land. Travellers trespass on private land.
It is against the law to park in a car park and not pay the fees. Travellers park in car parks and do not pay the fees.
So there we have three clear demonstrations that Travellers are not law abiding.
Onto that, you can add the fact that a very high percentage of Traveller women have experienced domestic violence (something like 80%+ if i recall correctly) and the overrepresentation of the traveller community in the prison population.
[quote][p][bold]dogloverdorset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: Law abiding folk shafted once again. I would request a judicial review ASAP doesn't cost a lot and in the short term will secure a bit more peace and security in the interim. Please note that you need to apply for judicial review at the earliest opportunity after approval is granted this must be submitted ideally within 4weeks and no later than 6weeks from the dated consent. Good luck I will wish you every success in fighting for the human rights of law abiding tax paying citizens.[/p][/quote]? Why the presumption that travellers are not law abiding? By denying them a place to camp, we make them illegal, yet they were here long before the enterprise park... since 1548 in Dorset actually ! Now they have a place to go, there will be a reduction in illegal encampments, plus evidence shows that when an area has a transit site, the minority of travellers that wish to camp illegally leave the area... Poole will no doubt regret turning down its site ! You would have to be really really dumb to know that you were scrutinized more than any other group in society, and go on a crime spree....[/p][/quote]I think you need to make a big distinction between the Roma/Romany/Sinti "gypsies" that have indeed existed in Britain for centuries, and the relatively recent influx of Irish itinerants. I have little exposure to true gypsies, but it is absolutely fair to say that Irish Travellers are not law abiding. For example, it is against the law to fly tip. Travellers leave rubbish behind them wherever they go. It is against the law to trespass on private land. Travellers trespass on private land. It is against the law to park in a car park and not pay the fees. Travellers park in car parks and do not pay the fees. So there we have three clear demonstrations that Travellers are not law abiding. Onto that, you can add the fact that a very high percentage of Traveller women have experienced domestic violence (something like 80%+ if i recall correctly) and the overrepresentation of the traveller community in the prison population. JamesYoung
  • Score: 11

10:08am Sun 11 May 14

Bob Goulding says...

JamesYoung wrote:
dogloverdorset wrote:
cj07589 wrote:
Law abiding folk shafted once again. I would request a judicial review ASAP doesn't cost a lot and in the short term will secure a bit more peace and security in the interim. Please note that you need to apply for judicial review at the earliest opportunity after approval is granted this must be submitted ideally within 4weeks and no later than 6weeks from the dated consent. Good luck I will wish you every success in fighting for the human rights of law abiding tax paying citizens.
? Why the presumption that travellers are not law abiding?

By denying them a place to camp, we make them illegal, yet they were here long before the enterprise park... since 1548 in Dorset actually ! Now they have a place to go, there will be a reduction in illegal encampments, plus evidence shows that when an area has a transit site, the minority of travellers that wish to camp illegally leave the area... Poole will no doubt regret turning down its site !

You would have to be really really dumb to know that you were scrutinized more than any other group in society, and go on a crime spree....
I think you need to make a big distinction between the Roma/Romany/Sinti "gypsies" that have indeed existed in Britain for centuries, and the relatively recent influx of Irish itinerants.
I have little exposure to true gypsies, but it is absolutely fair to say that Irish Travellers are not law abiding.
For example, it is against the law to fly tip. Travellers leave rubbish behind them wherever they go.
It is against the law to trespass on private land. Travellers trespass on private land.
It is against the law to park in a car park and not pay the fees. Travellers park in car parks and do not pay the fees.
So there we have three clear demonstrations that Travellers are not law abiding.
Onto that, you can add the fact that a very high percentage of Traveller women have experienced domestic violence (something like 80%+ if i recall correctly) and the overrepresentation of the traveller community in the prison population.
And, of course, tax evasion.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dogloverdorset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: Law abiding folk shafted once again. I would request a judicial review ASAP doesn't cost a lot and in the short term will secure a bit more peace and security in the interim. Please note that you need to apply for judicial review at the earliest opportunity after approval is granted this must be submitted ideally within 4weeks and no later than 6weeks from the dated consent. Good luck I will wish you every success in fighting for the human rights of law abiding tax paying citizens.[/p][/quote]? Why the presumption that travellers are not law abiding? By denying them a place to camp, we make them illegal, yet they were here long before the enterprise park... since 1548 in Dorset actually ! Now they have a place to go, there will be a reduction in illegal encampments, plus evidence shows that when an area has a transit site, the minority of travellers that wish to camp illegally leave the area... Poole will no doubt regret turning down its site ! You would have to be really really dumb to know that you were scrutinized more than any other group in society, and go on a crime spree....[/p][/quote]I think you need to make a big distinction between the Roma/Romany/Sinti "gypsies" that have indeed existed in Britain for centuries, and the relatively recent influx of Irish itinerants. I have little exposure to true gypsies, but it is absolutely fair to say that Irish Travellers are not law abiding. For example, it is against the law to fly tip. Travellers leave rubbish behind them wherever they go. It is against the law to trespass on private land. Travellers trespass on private land. It is against the law to park in a car park and not pay the fees. Travellers park in car parks and do not pay the fees. So there we have three clear demonstrations that Travellers are not law abiding. Onto that, you can add the fact that a very high percentage of Traveller women have experienced domestic violence (something like 80%+ if i recall correctly) and the overrepresentation of the traveller community in the prison population.[/p][/quote]And, of course, tax evasion. Bob Goulding
  • Score: 7

12:19pm Sun 11 May 14

burgerboy says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
You can't use the "G" word how ridiculous is that.
They are now to be known as" Caravan Utilizing Nomadic Travelers Society"
Work that one out for your self................
.....
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: You can't use the "G" word how ridiculous is that.[/p][/quote]They are now to be known as" Caravan Utilizing Nomadic Travelers Society" Work that one out for your self................ ..... burgerboy
  • Score: 18

2:08pm Sun 11 May 14

MrTomSmith says...

burgerboy wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
You can't use the "G" word how ridiculous is that.
They are now to be known as" Caravan Utilizing Nomadic Travelers Society"
Work that one out for your self................

.....
Perfect
[quote][p][bold]burgerboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: You can't use the "G" word how ridiculous is that.[/p][/quote]They are now to be known as" Caravan Utilizing Nomadic Travelers Society" Work that one out for your self................ .....[/p][/quote]Perfect MrTomSmith
  • Score: 11

9:37pm Sun 11 May 14

IDONTKNOWIFITISTRRUE says...

Interestin bit of news on BBC site
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-england-dor
set-27361807
Piddlehinton Gypsy site CCTV 'infringement of privacy'
Interestin bit of news on BBC site http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-dor set-27361807 Piddlehinton Gypsy site CCTV 'infringement of privacy' IDONTKNOWIFITISTRRUE
  • Score: 2

9:08am Mon 12 May 14

cj07589 says...

IDONTKNOWIFITISTRRUE wrote:
Interestin bit of news on BBC site
http://www.bbc.co.uk

/news/uk-england-dor

set-27361807
Piddlehinton Gypsy site CCTV 'infringement of privacy'
I read this on the BBC last night. I have no doubt they will use the ECHR human rights provision to contest its legality off the back of the tax payer. Surely if a condition associated to the planning consent is not provided/fulfilled then the local residents have good grounds to contest the decision through the judicial review process.
Personally as a law abiding citizen I'd have no issues with the business park users including my car license plate details being recorded, logic suggests you'd only have grievances to the proposal if you had something to hide or other than good and honest intentions. Makes you think doesn't it this development only adds insult to injury.
[quote][p][bold]IDONTKNOWIFITISTRRUE[/bold] wrote: Interestin bit of news on BBC site http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-dor set-27361807 Piddlehinton Gypsy site CCTV 'infringement of privacy'[/p][/quote]I read this on the BBC last night. I have no doubt they will use the ECHR human rights provision to contest its legality off the back of the tax payer. Surely if a condition associated to the planning consent is not provided/fulfilled then the local residents have good grounds to contest the decision through the judicial review process. Personally as a law abiding citizen I'd have no issues with the business park users including my car license plate details being recorded, logic suggests you'd only have grievances to the proposal if you had something to hide or other than good and honest intentions. Makes you think doesn't it this development only adds insult to injury. cj07589
  • Score: 3

11:25am Mon 12 May 14

koeterwaals says...

Sigurd Hoeberth wrote:
Another EU directive has created this.

Vote UKIP.
This has got nothing to do with any EU directive. Everywhere else in Europe the police are able (and willing) to move the travelling community on.

It was the previous labour government that passed the relevant laws.
[quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoeberth[/bold] wrote: Another EU directive has created this. Vote UKIP.[/p][/quote]This has got nothing to do with any EU directive. Everywhere else in Europe the police are able (and willing) to move the travelling community on. It was the previous labour government that passed the relevant laws. koeterwaals
  • Score: 0

11:29am Mon 12 May 14

cj07589 says...

koeterwaals wrote:
Sigurd Hoeberth wrote:
Another EU directive has created this.

Vote UKIP.
This has got nothing to do with any EU directive. Everywhere else in Europe the police are able (and willing) to move the travelling community on.

It was the previous labour government that passed the relevant laws.
Your wrong...... read the thread properly you might just learn something!
[quote][p][bold]koeterwaals[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoeberth[/bold] wrote: Another EU directive has created this. Vote UKIP.[/p][/quote]This has got nothing to do with any EU directive. Everywhere else in Europe the police are able (and willing) to move the travelling community on. It was the previous labour government that passed the relevant laws.[/p][/quote]Your wrong...... read the thread properly you might just learn something! cj07589
  • Score: 1

11:45am Mon 12 May 14

koeterwaals says...

dogloverdorset wrote:
cj07589 wrote:
Law abiding folk shafted once again. I would request a judicial review ASAP doesn't cost a lot and in the short term will secure a bit more peace and security in the interim. Please note that you need to apply for judicial review at the earliest opportunity after approval is granted this must be submitted ideally within 4weeks and no later than 6weeks from the dated consent. Good luck I will wish you every success in fighting for the human rights of law abiding tax paying citizens.
? Why the presumption that travellers are not law abiding?

By denying them a place to camp, we make them illegal, yet they were here long before the enterprise park... since 1548 in Dorset actually ! Now they have a place to go, there will be a reduction in illegal encampments, plus evidence shows that when an area has a transit site, the minority of travellers that wish to camp illegally leave the area... Poole will no doubt regret turning down its site !

You would have to be really really dumb to know that you were scrutinized more than any other group in society, and go on a crime spree....
Who is denying them a place to camp? There are thousands of camp sites around the UK. They just need to book and pay like all other normal people have to.

If they have been travelling around the UK since 1548, how come they still have Irish accents?
[quote][p][bold]dogloverdorset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: Law abiding folk shafted once again. I would request a judicial review ASAP doesn't cost a lot and in the short term will secure a bit more peace and security in the interim. Please note that you need to apply for judicial review at the earliest opportunity after approval is granted this must be submitted ideally within 4weeks and no later than 6weeks from the dated consent. Good luck I will wish you every success in fighting for the human rights of law abiding tax paying citizens.[/p][/quote]? Why the presumption that travellers are not law abiding? By denying them a place to camp, we make them illegal, yet they were here long before the enterprise park... since 1548 in Dorset actually ! Now they have a place to go, there will be a reduction in illegal encampments, plus evidence shows that when an area has a transit site, the minority of travellers that wish to camp illegally leave the area... Poole will no doubt regret turning down its site ! You would have to be really really dumb to know that you were scrutinized more than any other group in society, and go on a crime spree....[/p][/quote]Who is denying them a place to camp? There are thousands of camp sites around the UK. They just need to book and pay like all other normal people have to. If they have been travelling around the UK since 1548, how come they still have Irish accents? koeterwaals
  • Score: 6

11:52am Mon 12 May 14

koeterwaals says...

cj07589 wrote:
koeterwaals wrote:
Sigurd Hoeberth wrote:
Another EU directive has created this.

Vote UKIP.
This has got nothing to do with any EU directive. Everywhere else in Europe the police are able (and willing) to move the travelling community on.

It was the previous labour government that passed the relevant laws.
Your wrong...... read the thread properly you might just learn something!
If you read European news and not just UK news you will see many reports of the French/Spanish/Itali
an/German etc. police moving illegal travellers on. In fact, in many cases they are not just moved on, they are deported back to their home land.
If those countries can do it then why cannot the UK. If it was an EU directive it would not be possible for those countries to do so.
[quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]koeterwaals[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoeberth[/bold] wrote: Another EU directive has created this. Vote UKIP.[/p][/quote]This has got nothing to do with any EU directive. Everywhere else in Europe the police are able (and willing) to move the travelling community on. It was the previous labour government that passed the relevant laws.[/p][/quote]Your wrong...... read the thread properly you might just learn something![/p][/quote]If you read European news and not just UK news you will see many reports of the French/Spanish/Itali an/German etc. police moving illegal travellers on. In fact, in many cases they are not just moved on, they are deported back to their home land. If those countries can do it then why cannot the UK. If it was an EU directive it would not be possible for those countries to do so. koeterwaals
  • Score: 4

4:49pm Mon 12 May 14

MaidofDorset says...

There's a rumour going round that the powers that be sent the people in to install water on the site before the vote. This can't be true?
There's a rumour going round that the powers that be sent the people in to install water on the site before the vote. This can't be true? MaidofDorset
  • Score: 2

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