# Wells on Sea...no go area!



## REC

Parked up near Blakeney in Norfolk and thought we would go to Wells for the day, have lunch and a bit of shopping. All car parks now have 2.2 m height barrier even the, manned, coach park! Spoke to chap on duty, thinking he would raise the bar as he was sitting there and a coach already parked. The answer was "no, we are onhigh alert for travellers"! I pointed out that this means Wells don't want any motorhomers spending their money there, he agreed and helped us tiurn round and leave! Absolutely fuming as this is just so short sighted. We have visited often up till now...why not have barriers and pay to leave parking? Will be writing to the council to express our disgust


----------



## Norfolk NewBoy

Unless things have changed you can often park near the Coop on Polka Road. Unfortunately the height barriers went up on the recently-constructed carpark, the quay banned campervans a few years ago and parking used to be available by the sailing club but it has all disappeared. On-street parking is now the only option and the Buttlands is OK for cars but nothing much bigger. I heard that even the Beach carpark is refusing motorhomes.

Gordon


----------



## REC

I have emailed the north Norfolk council and copied the Wells next Sea council:

Unable to park our motorhome in Wells next Sea due to height barriers, even on the coach carpark. The attendant there informed us they were on "high alert for travellers" and just suggested we drive further to Holkham as Wells does not want us to visit. A very short sighted, lazy and unfair attitude to a large group of people who frequently spend a lot of money in the towns they visit.  Why not have an area where the barrier lifts for entry and one pays to get out as in many many towns in Europe. Follow the example of Canterbury in Kent who have a designated area, two nights maximum,  pay to enter and is always occupied, keeping the car park secure overnight when normally empty? Or just allow us to park in the coach area? I met several other owners on the site where we are staying and some were already aware of the attitude from Wells so avoided it and a couple of others who said they won't try. The revenue lost to the retailers in the area will continue over winter and at times when the parking may be open in future. We won't risk going and spoiling our planned day out on any other occasions,  we will go somewhere that welcomes this fairly large, affluent section of the community.


----------



## maureenandtom

_*the answer was "no, we are on high alert for travellers"*_

!It would be nice to have that official and in writing from the council.   I'd like to see their response when you get one.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/74/enacted

They become guilty of racial discrimination, even if they include us, as soon as they admit their target is the Traveller.  We are simply collateral damage in their Final Solution to the Traveller Problem.


----------



## Deleted member 56601

maureenandtom said:


> https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/74/enacted
> 
> They become guilty of *racial discrimination*, even if they include us, as soon as they admit their target is the Traveller.  We are simply collateral damage in their Final Solution to the Traveller Problem.


Surely travellers are not a 'race', it is just their chosen way of life?


----------



## Fisherman

Edina said:


> Surely travellers are not a 'race', it is just their chosen way of life?


Romany *Gypsies* and Irish *Travellers* are legally recognised as ethnic groups, and protected from discrimination by the *Race* Relations Act (1976, amended 2000) and the Human Rights Act (1998).23 Oct 2017









						Gypsies and Travellers - race discrimination
					

Explains how Gypsies and Travellers are protected by race discrimination law, according to the Equality Act 2010.




					www.citizensadvice.org.uk


----------



## maureenandtom

Yes.  A good point. Sometime raised about Muslims and also Jews.

This provides a good guide in plain English.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/l...s/gypsies-and-travellers-race-discrimination/


----------



## Biggarmac

What about us "Old Age Travellers".  we should get ourselves recognised as an ethnic group as we have a nomadic lifestyle.


----------



## trevskoda

So robs a bargee, id say a bar prop more like it.


----------



## GreggBear

Fisherman said:


> Romany *Gypsies* and Irish *Travellers* are legally recognised as ethnic groups, and protected from discrimination by the *Race* Relations Act (1976, amended 2000) and the Human Rights Act (1998).23 Oct 2017
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gypsies and Travellers - race discrimination
> 
> 
> Explains how Gypsies and Travellers are protected by race discrimination law, according to the Equality Act 2010.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.citizensadvice.org.uk


If those groups are protected, but we are not, surely that is discrimination in itself towards us....


----------



## FireFox

It is a shame but I do get why, a few years ago there was a bunch of travellers (most likely comes under a different name) stopped in Skegness, they left the place in an absolute state. So frustrating because it tars everyone with that same brush, hopefully oneday it'll change but I can't see it.


----------



## SquirrellCook

My Mother would have referred to them as Tinkers and sent them on their way.  A true Gypsy would have been invited in for tea, after all they were family. I doubt if any exist now.


----------



## Fisherman

GreggBear said:


> If those groups are protected, but we are not, surely that is discrimination in itself towards us....



When you read a sign saying no motorhomes you are being treated differently from other road users. Is it discrimination, well possibly not, but we are being treated differently from folk who behave terribly, dog walkers who don’t pick up their mess, and those amongst others who vandalise the facilities. They are all allowed to park where we are not.


----------



## yorkslass

Fisherman said:


> When you read a sign saying no motorhomes you are being treated differently from other road users. Is it discrimination, well possibly not, but we are being treated differently from folk who behave terribly, dog walkers who don’t pick up their mess, and those amongst others who vandalise the facilities. They are all allowed to park where we are not.


Don't  see how it can be anything else but discrimination,


----------



## Fisherman

yorkslass said:


> Don't  see how it can be anything else but discrimination,


The problem is to be discrimination, it has to be unjust, or prejudicial.
Thats why I stated different.
You would have to prove an injustice has taken place, and therein lies the problem.
We are being treated differently, but is this unjust, or prejudicial.

Heres a strict definition.

*the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, sex, or disability.*


----------



## witzend

Would it do any good to start one of these petitions to the government asking for us to be treated the same as other road users who have parking supplied for them


----------



## Fisherman

witzend said:


> Would it do any good to start one of these petitions to the government asking for us to be treated the same as other road users who have parking supplied for them


I don’t reckon it would. But I would gladly sign it.
Every time I see a sign saying no motorhomes, or barriers erected I feel angry.
Why are we being treated like this. We pay our taxes that finance these places that we are banned from. Is it discrimination, I will leave that to lawyers, but I do feel instinctively “discriminated“ against.


----------



## REC

maureenandtom said:


> _*the answer was "no, we are on high alert for travellers"*_
> 
> !It would be nice to have that official and in writing from the council.   I'd like to see their response when you get one.
> 
> https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/74/enacted
> 
> They become guilty of racial discrimination, even if they include us, as soon as they admit their target is the Traveller.  We are simply collateral damage in their Final Solution to the Traveller Problem.


Response from council...I also copied Wells next Sea council but had no reply to date

Dear Ruth.

Many thanks for your complaint regarding the above, and your motorhome accessing the car park.

I’m sorry that you were unable to access the car park on that day. We reserve the right to close the height barriers, as we need to protect our communities and businesses.

Many thanks for your suggestions as to how the barriers could be operated in future. I will share this with colleagues.

Best wishes,
Karl


Karl Read
Leisure and Locality Services Manager
+441263 516002

They don't specify from what or who they need protection! Typical response...pretty bland.


----------



## REC

Hi
Thanks for your response. Can you advise what or who you have the "right to protect your community and businesses from " since you do not make this clear in your email? It feels very much like blanket discrimination against a section of road users. Motorhomers and taller vehicles such as disability vehicles, should be provided with safe places to park, the same as car users. To exclude them without a proper justification seems harsh and unfair at the very least.
Awaiting your reply with interest


----------



## REC

Further reply to above...
Hi Ruth


A joint decision was made by the Police and Council Senior Management to install these barriers following the bad experience we had from travellers in August 2017, when most of the town’s pubs and cafes had to close for fear of safety of their staff and customers. The previous night they have received abuse and harassment, with travellers demanding free drinks, food and also money.



We only have a few car parks with height barriers on, so there are many others in the district that you are still able to use.



Once again, apologies for the inconvenience you have experienced.

Well that explains it all!!    I have replied and asked specifically where the other car parks are in Wells...but this is obviously one stuck in the mud attitude.


----------



## maureenandtom

August 2017


----------



## maureenandtom

I wonder how many complaints, prosecutions and convictions there were on that occasion four years ago.


----------



## REC

maureenandtom said:


> I wonder how many complaints, prosecutions and convictions there were on that occasion four years ago.


Me too....the knee jerk reaction is definitely discriminating against us old codgers who just want to spend our money!


----------



## Millie Master

Thank gaud I am well and truly into the twilight years of my life is all I can say!! 

I am and always have been an honest legal, law abiding tax payer who is very/exceptionally proud of his country.....  It makes my blood boil when I read abut the mamby pambyish attitudes of so many people when it comes to certain groups who don't pay even the remotest levels of lip service to our once proud Countries laws!

Oh and by the way we regularly visit Wells Next The Sea and leave our van at our friends house a couple or so miles away and go to Wells in their car as the parking regime their is in such absolute chaos!!!


----------



## Tezza33

REC said:


> Me too....the knee jerk reaction is definitely discriminating against us old codgers who just want to spend our money!


I have never seen you as an old codger, perhaps I should stop drinking


----------



## Robmac

trevskoda said:


> So robs a bargee, id say a bar prop more like it.



Bar Fly if you don't mind Trev!

I don't usually stay in Wells but often somewhere nearby. We do like to drive into Wells though and use the excellent chippy. It's a shame if we can't even do that due to parking restrictions.


----------



## Norfolk NewBoy

We were at Burnham Overy Staithe a couple of weekends away, with daughter and her family in their campervan. We ordered fish n chips using an app then SiL drove into Wells to collect them for all of us. Fortunately I went with him and he was able to drop me off, circle the town a couple of times and pick me up after I rang him.

Gordon

There was an almost invisible sign saying "orders please use the exit door": I automatically joined the standard queue.


----------



## Goggles

We came across the same thing in Cromer 2019 in the Runton Rd car park. Height barriers over because the police had had wind that gypsies were about to invade the town. Luckily you  can park in other car parks in Cromer and there is on road parking in places but it’s tight and not so nice as the Runton Rd one. You also have to get parked up fairly early.


----------



## maureenandtom

_*"A joint decision was made by the Police and Council Senior Management to install these barriers following the bad experience we had from travellers in August 2017, when most of the town’s pubs and cafes had to close for fear of safety of their staff and customers. The previous night they have received abuse and harassment, with travellers demanding free drinks, food and also money."*_

It looks rather like this town had a particularly rough time of it in 2017.   We're always anxious to believe stories like this.     I can't find any record of it being published anywhere - local press and the like.   Unless anyone can find it, it rather looks like the excuses other councils have given of hundreds of complaints about motorhomers leaving rubbish and worse.   Those stories never turned out to be true and maybe this one won't either.   I might ask them.


----------



## Deleted member 56601

maureenandtom said:


> _*"A joint decision was made by the Police and Council Senior Management to install these barriers following the bad experience we had from travellers in August 2017, when most of the town’s pubs and cafes had to close for fear of safety of their staff and customers. The previous night they have received abuse and harassment, with travellers demanding free drinks, food and also money."*_
> 
> It looks rather like this town had a particularly rough time of it in 2017.   We're always anxious to believe stories like this.     I can't find any record of it being published anywhere - local press and the like.   Unless anyone can find it, it rather looks like the excuses other councils have given of hundreds of complaints about motorhomers leaving rubbish and worse.   Those stories never turned out to be true and maybe this one won't either.   I might ask them.


It happened! Ask a local who lived there then


----------



## Val54

maureenandtom said:


> _*"A joint decision was made by the Police and Council Senior Management to install these barriers following the bad experience we had from travellers in August 2017, when most of the town’s pubs and cafes had to close for fear of safety of their staff and customers. The previous night they have received abuse and harassment, with travellers demanding free drinks, food and also money."*_
> 
> It looks rather like this town had a particularly rough time of it in 2017.   We're always anxious to believe stories like this.     I can't find any record of it being published anywhere - local press and the like.   Unless anyone can find it, it rather looks like the excuses other councils have given of hundreds of complaints about motorhomers leaving rubbish and worse.   Those stories never turned out to be true and maybe this one won't either.   I might ask them.


Same as you, nothing specific, but I did spot this article for August that year ......









						Seaside town Cromer placed on 'lockdown' amid scenes of mass disorder - we reveal all
					

TRAVELLERS were evicted from a sleepy seaside town after it was placed on lockdown amid scenes of mass disorder. Cromer in Norfolk was plunged into chaos as police were called to a series of incide…




					www.thescottishsun.co.uk


----------



## maureenandtom

Edina said:


> It happened! Ask a local who lived there then



Pity then that nothing remains of what must have been  reported.    But maybe I will ask.  I might also ask if criminal acts were dealt with in the proper manner using  the criminal justice system.   That is,  charge offenders with crimes, convict them if guilty, *and let the rest of us law-abiding citizens go about our business unhindered*.

It seems to me at least, that it has been decided that the criminal justice system in Norfork is not up to the job of protecting citizens so ban anyone in a high-rise vehicle from car parks.  Prevention is better than cure?   Really?

Norfolk county council did act legally in some cases  by obtaining injunctions agains some encampments.   Unfortunately for Norfolk and other like minded authorities the court of appeal has decided such injunctions have no legal force.  https://www.libertyhumanrights.org....freedom-of-gypsy-and-traveller-right-to-roam/

So, what do we do?    Agree that Travellers do not have legal rights?   And whatever we can bring to bear against them is fair?    Or do we insist that councils act within the authority granted them by law?  But never outside it.


----------



## maureenandtom

Val54 said:


> Same as you, nothing specific, but I did spot this article for August that year ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seaside town Cromer placed on 'lockdown' amid scenes of mass disorder - we reveal all
> 
> 
> TRAVELLERS were evicted from a sleepy seaside town after it was placed on lockdown amid scenes of mass disorder. Cromer in Norfolk was plunged into chaos as police were called to a series of incide…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thescottishsun.co.uk


Yes.  I think that's probably the one.  Thanks for that.


----------



## Robmac

Edina said:


> It happened! Ask a local who lived there then



It certainly did Chris.

I remember seeing some footage of it when it was reported on Anglia News.


----------



## Robmac

Norfolk NewBoy said:


> We were at Burnham Overy Staithe a couple of weekends away, with daughter and her family in their campervan. We ordered fish n chips using an app then SiL drove into Wells to collect them for all of us. Fortunately I went with him and he was able to drop me off, circle the town a couple of times and pick me up after I rang him.
> 
> Gordon
> 
> There was an almost invisible sign saying "orders please use the exit door": I automatically joined the standard queue.



Good idea I will look up the app.

Unfortunately the queue at the chippy can be very long - what was the queue for orders like?


----------



## Norfolk NewBoy

Robmac said:


> Good idea I will look up the app.
> 
> Unfortunately the queue at the chippy can be very long - what was the queue for orders like?



Straight through!
Select your pick-up time in a 15min window (from memory). Announce that you have arrived and your order is next to be made-up. Paid by card.

Gordon


----------



## Robmac

Norfolk NewBoy said:


> Straight through!
> Select your pick-up time in a 15min window (from memory). Announce that you have arrived and your order is next to be made-up. Paid by card.
> 
> Gordon



Thanks for that, I've queued for ages outside there before now!


----------



## Millie Master

maureenandtom said:


> _*"A joint decision was made by the Police and Council Senior Management to install these barriers following the bad experience we had from travellers in August 2017, when most of the town’s pubs and cafes had to close for fear of safety of their staff and customers. The previous night they have received abuse and harassment, with travellers demanding free drinks, food and also money."*_
> 
> It looks rather like this town had a particularly rough time of it in 2017.   We're always anxious to believe stories like this.     I can't find any record of it being published anywhere - local press and the like.   Unless anyone can find it, it rather looks like the excuses other councils have given of hundreds of complaints about motorhomers leaving rubbish and worse.   Those stories never turned out to be true and maybe this one won't either.   I might ask them.


We have some very close friends who live in Aylmerton who told us some years ago, about how the entire region of the coastline running along from almost Cromer right through almost to Hunstanton, where residents were almost held to ransom by the Traveller Community who decided to move into the area!

There are other quite extensive areas in the Country where similar things have happened and yet their councils have been virtually powerless to do anything!


----------



## REC

What really annoyed us was that, at the coach park, there was actually an attendant who was there to raise the barrier for coaches.....I can understand that they had a nasty time in 2017, but there have been years since. A bit of discretion could be applied or an area allocated for high vehicles with pay to leave barriers.  We have been in winter and no barriers in place, do travellers not come in winter??


----------



## maureenandtom

I've read the newspaper report and the locals must have had a dreadful time of it.   Quarter of a million visitors in one go to a town with a normal population of less than 8000.  In that Quarter of a Million visitors were at least 23 Traveller Caravans and at least 40 Travellers.

Without getting heated;   what's the general view?   The locals had a very rough time four years ago.    Maybe the measures worked and there has been peace since.  Does that justify the council breaking national law?  Can we allow local authorities to decide for themselves what law to obey?

 I have this feeling that we are a civilised society with rule of law.   This council seems to have broken one of our fundamental laws. There is to be no discrimination on certain grounds - one of those grounds is race.    Travellers, in law, are a protected ethnicity.   It would be for a court to decide whether racial discrimination laws had been broken.   I think they have been.    Should the council be prosecuted or should we be thankful that here we have a council willing to stand up to those despicable people who call themselves Travellers?  What other laws will an embolden council feel itself able to ignore?   Abolish all laws and let local officials decide what law is?

With apologies and thanks to Martin Niemoller



> First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
> Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
> Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
> Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


----------



## maureenandtom

REC said:


> What really annoyed us was that, at the coach park, there was actually an attendant who was there to raise the barrier for coaches.....I can understand that they had a nasty time in 2017, but there have been years since. A bit of discretion could be applied or an area allocated for high vehicles with pay to leave barriers.  *We have been in winter and no barriers in place,* do travellers not come in winter??


That's interesting.  Thank you.   Is it North Norfolk County Council or Wells Town Council?


----------



## Deleted member 34243

Blimey I didn’t realise they were putting motorhomers in extermination camps


----------



## alcam

phase3begins said:


> Blimey I didn’t realise they were putting motorhomers in extermination camps


Not before time


----------



## trevskoda

Most but not all the travelers here behave, if they don't the other crowd with things that go BANG come round and sort things, no police involved.


----------



## FULL TIMER

none as far as I remember, th


maureenandtom said:


> I wonder how many complaints, prosecutions and convictions there were on that occasion four years ago.


none if I remember correctly , the police bottled it and were nowhere to be seen and left the shop owners and landlords etc to get on with it , there were also several sexual assaults amongst all the other mayhem,


----------



## Val54

trevskoda said:


> Most but not all the travelers here behave, if they don't the other crowd with things that go BANG come round and sort things, no police involved.


The "Cheshire Solution" is for a couple a farmers to arrive with slurry tankers ...........................


----------



## Rolyan57

maureenandtom said:


> I've read the newspaper report and the locals must have had a dreadful time of it.   Quarter of a million visitors in one go to a town with a normal population of less than 8000.  In that Quarter of a Million visitors were at least 23 Traveller Caravans and at least 40 Travellers.
> 
> Without getting heated;   what's the general view?   The locals had a very rough time four years ago.    Maybe the measures worked and there has been peace since.  Does that justify the council breaking national law?  Can we allow local authorities to decide for themselves what law to obey?
> 
> I have this feeling that we are a civilised society with rule of law.   This council seems to have broken one of our fundamental laws. There is to be no discrimination on certain grounds - one of those grounds is race.    Travellers, in law, are a protected ethnicity.   It would be for a court to decide whether racial discrimination laws had been broken.   I think they have been.    Should the council be prosecuted or should we be thankful that here we have a council willing to stand up to those despicable people who call themselves Travellers?  What other laws will an embolden council feel itself able to ignore?   Abolish all laws and let local officials decide what law is?
> 
> With apologies and thanks to Martin Niemoller


I’ve found in general that those who have had first hand personal experience of the extreme mess and damage, the physical and verbal abuse, the constant violence and the increased thefts caused by certain groups are happy with any actions the councils take to protect local residents.

Whereas those who’ve never experienced it are much more likely to quote Niemoller.


----------



## maureenandtom

Yes, well that's me I'm afraid.   I see Royan's point and I sympathise.   But, in my defence I think it more important that authority obeyst he laws authority makes.     Haven't we seen the outrage during the pandemic of senior officials believing they are above the law?    Well, I believe this council has broken the law.    Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe this ethnic minority deserves all it gets - even if unlawful.

Imagine if a council denied the right to park to black people because they believed a number of crimes four years ago could be attributed to black  visitors?   They'd not get far with that one, I think.   Some years ago, Leicester City Council took an advert in several national and foreign newspapers that Leicester did not want any more Asian Residents:

I think no council would get away with that one nowadays either.  It's my hope that height barriers to deter a racial minority will be similarly abhorrent in the future. 

Just because some of us might have suffered from the activities of _pikies _(change the first vowel and that word would not be allowed here) does not, I believe, permit us to act outside the law - and especially not if you are a lawmaker.


----------



## Rolyan57

The ones I’m talking about (and the ones the council are trying to prevent) certainly deserve all they get.

I’m still not convinced that what they are doing is unlawful. The same as the guy who lives near me has now closed his (private) country lane at night with a gate, as he was having MAJOR issues with it being used by Asian drug dealers.  So now no one can use it, including Motorhome’s.
Do residents approve. Yes. Is it legal. Yes. Will some snowflakes object. Probably.
But those of us who have been experienced first hand what these groups do, welcome it with open arms.


----------



## GreggBear

The obvious answer in my opinion, the unruly travellers in 2017 should have been dealt with there & then. Its fair comment that travelling people have rights to travel, but  Police have laws to use against criminal activity regardless of who the culprit is. Violent affray can be dealt with under present laws, as can shoplifting etc. The problem starts when policemen  are afraid to go against these people, so they go unpunished. If the police were able to catch & prosecute criminals properly, & the judicial system  backed up with common sense rather than bowing down to the snowflakes, maybe these people would think twice before running amok. Then maybe this blanket "no travellers" ban wouldn't need to be in place. 
What sort of sensible society can confuse some couple in a motorhome with a large group of Irish travellers?


----------



## Monitorlizard

FireFox said:


> It is a shame but I do get why, a few years ago there was a bunch of travellers (most likely comes under a different name) stopped in Skegness, they left the place in an absolute state. So frustrating because it tars everyone with that same brush, hopefully oneday it'll change but I can't see it.


Same happened in Cromer,just before Covid struck.Shoplifting on a grand scale, fighting & muggings.Probably the same crew, travelling down the East Coast.Wells just protecting themselves from  a repeat dose


----------



## Fisherman

GreggBear said:


> *What sort of sensible society can confuse some couple in a motorhome with a large group of Irish travellers?*


This one.


----------



## Fisherman

Rolyan57 said:


> The ones I’m talking about (and the ones the council are trying to prevent) certainly deserve all they get.
> 
> I’m still not convinced that what they are doing is unlawful. The same as the guy who lives near me has now closed his (private) country lane at night with a gate, as he was having MAJOR issues with it being used by Asian drug dealers.  So now no one can use it, including Motorhome’s.
> Do residents approve. Yes. Is it legal. Yes. Will some snowflakes object. Probably.
> But those of us who have been experienced first hand what these groups do, welcome it with open arms.


There’s a massive difference between private land, and public carparks that are built and maintained with *our* money. If it’s not unlawful it’s certainly immoral. No other group of law abiding people are treated like us, most groups are catered for in our society. But instead of being catered for we subjected to treatment unfit for people who have worked all of their adult lives and contributed to our respective countries.


----------



## Rob H

maureenandtom said:


> Yes.  A good point. Sometime raised about Muslims and also Jews.
> 
> This provides a good guide in plain English.
> 
> https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/l...s/gypsies-and-travellers-race-discrimination/
> 
> View attachment 99987
> 
> View attachment 99988


Perhaps this group needs a name change to ... 'Wild Camper Gypsie Group' ... or, stickers for our vans, 'Fortunes told / Pegs for sale' ... just a thought ...


----------



## Val54

GreggBear said:


> The obvious answer in my opinion, the unruly travellers in 2017 should have been dealt with there & then. Its fair comment that travelling people have rights to travel, but  Police have laws to use against criminal activity regardless of who the culprit is. Violent affray can be dealt with under present laws, as can shoplifting etc. The problem starts when policemen  are afraid to go against these people, so they go unpunished. If the police were able to catch & prosecute criminals properly, & the judicial system  backed up with common sense rather than bowing down to the snowflakes, maybe these people would think twice before running amok. Then maybe this blanket "no travellers" ban wouldn't need to be in place.
> What sort of sensible society can confuse some couple in a motorhome with a large group of Irish travellers?


Unfortunately that last sentence is rapidly becoming out of date, given the number of younger travellers who use motorhomes as they haven't passed the test for towing.


----------



## Val54

The erection of height barriers on a public car park by a local authority is not illegal as they have extensive general powers to carry out their statutory functions which includes traffic management. We may not like it as motorhomers but realistically in areas where illegal incursions of travellers are relatively common, the local authority will always argue that such measures are in the wider public interest to keep car parks available for the general public. As I live in an area where incursions do happen, I wouldn't disagree. The counter point is what are the local authorities are doing about ensuring some motorhome parking remains available in a sensible location. That, of course is where we have little influence as the number of motorhome owners in any one local authority renders us a very small minority. That is compounded by the fact that when local authorities review their traffic management plans and carry out the statutory public consultation, how many motorhome owner responses do we think they get ............................


----------



## maureenandtom

Rolyan57 said:


> *The ones I’m talking about (and the ones the council are trying to prevent) certainly deserve all they get.*
> 
> I’m still not convinced that what they are doing is unlawful. The same as the guy who lives near me has now closed his (private) country lane at night with a gate, as he was having MAJOR issues with it being used by Asian drug dealers.  So now no one can use it, including Motorhome’s.
> Do residents approve. Yes. Is it legal. Yes. Will some snowflakes object. Probably.
> But those of us who have been experienced first hand what these groups do, welcome it with open arms.


Quite possibly they do.  I'm sure you;re right.  Throw the book at them and when you've dealt with them throw away the key - but don;t break the law to do it.  That way lies an apology and compensation some time in the future.     The  guy with his private property can make his own rules.   If he was to charge for his services and decided to exclude a particular section of society simply because of colour, race, etc then, I'm not sure either, but I think he's be breaking the law.  Otherwise, his propetty, hisr rules.

Anyone who accepts authority having unlimited authority is asking for trouble.   Luckily most of society, our society, believes in the rule of law.  And if they don;t, well I do and I'm thankful for it.


----------



## maureenandtom

Val54 said:


> The erection of height barriers on a public car park by a local authority is not illegal as *they have extensive general powers to carry out their statutory functions which includes traffic management.* We may not like it as motorhomers but realistically in areas where illegal incursions of travellers are relatively common, the local authority will always argue that such measures are in the wider public interest to keep car parks available for the general public. As I live in an area where incursions do happen, I wouldn't disagree. The counter point is what are the local authorities are doing about ensuring some motorhome parking remains available in a sensible location. That, of course is where we have little influence as the number of motorhome owners in any one local authority renders us a very small minority. That is compounded by the fact that when local authorities review their traffic management plans and carry out the statutory public consultation, how many motorhome owner responses do we think they get ............................



Once again, quite possibly you're right.   I think this council has said_ we have erected these barriers because of the bad behaviour of a particular race.   We are on high alert for them now_, This appears to be a contravention of the race relations Act quoted earlier that no such discrimination can be made. This trumps the general powers - a little more later. If the bouncer - and Karl Read (?) - had kept quiet then nothing could be done. As it stands the feeling against this racial minority is strong enough that we will accept the council breaking the law. That is our loss. Probably nothing will be done. Not by me any more anyway.

On this occasion it seems, from the council statement that this was not put to public discussion but was agreed at a meeeting of the Polce Authority and Senior Management, ie council workers.  Not even put to a full council.

You're right about motorhome responses locally but only partly right.   The general powers you refer to are authorised by the Localism Act of 2011,   A number of councils, Brighton and Hove, Rother and one or two others used PSPOs to control traffic  (specifically Travellers (and us).  There was a sufficient opposition to this misuse of power (which is also prohibited in the govt guidelines for their use_ that it's now been several years since any council tried to use a PSPO to control  traffic.  I think the last I know of is at Leeming Bar about two or so years ago.  That PSPO is still valid but, so far as I know, has never been enforced.

(Oh last thing - many of the public consultations carried out to justify PSPOs (Localism Act) used a slanted questioning to support the council's wishes.  For example, in Rother, I think, the questions for a PSPO  banning motorhome parking followed the lines of _"Do you agree that motorhomes should be allowed to camp at the side of road for ulimited periods"_ Despite widespread criticism I believe some questionaires follow the same sort of bias.)


----------



## maureenandtom

Rob H said:


> Perhaps this group needs a name change to ... 'Wild Camper Gypsie Group' ... or, stickers for our vans, 'Fortunes told / Pegs for sale' ... just a thought ...


I could do with my drive doing.  Recommend anyone?


----------



## Val54

maureenandtom said:


> Once again, quite possibly you're right.   I think this council has said_ we have erected these barriers because of the bad behaviour of a particular race.   We are on high alert for them now_, This appears to be a contravention of the race relations Act quoted earlier that no such discrimination can be made. This trumps the general powers - a little more later. If the bouncer - and Karl Read (?) - had kept quiet then nothing could be done. As it stands the feeling against this racial minority is strong enough that we will accept the council breaking the law. That is our loss. Probably nothing will be done. Not by me any more anyway.
> 
> On this occasion it seems, from the council statement that this was not put to public discussion but was agreed at a meeeting of the Polce Authority and Senior Management, ie council workers.  Not even put to a full council.
> 
> You're right about motorhome responses locally but only partly right.   The general powers you refer to are authorised by the Localism Act of 2011,   A number of councils, Brighton and Hove, Rother and one or two others used PSPOs to control traffic  (specifically Travellers (and us).  There was a sufficient opposition to this misuse of power (which is also prohibited in the govt guidelines for their use_ that it's now been several years since any council tried to use a PSPO to control  traffic.  I think the last I know of is at Leeming Bar about two or so years ago.  That PSPO is still valid but, so far as I know, has never been enforced.
> 
> (Oh last thing - many of the public consultations carried out to justify PSPOs (Localism Act) used a slanted questioning to support the council's wishes.  For example, in Rother, I think, the questions for a PSPO  banning motorhome parking followed the lines of _"Do you agree that motorhomes should be allowed to camp at the side of road for ulimited periods"_ Despite widespread criticism I believe some questionaires follow the same sort of bias.)


One of the best current sources for background info for local authority powers can be found here ...


			https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05687/SN05687.pdf
		

One issue that we often overlook is how local authorities delegate their own powers.  A lot of LA's operate "cabinet" style management where the powers for a specific area of services are overseen and determined by one elected member of the majority party, a lot of decisions are delegated to the cabinet member and/or relevant senior council officer. The ability for decisions to be "called in" to a full Council meeting vary from council to council but can be quite limited. 
But back to playing "devil's advocate" , how does the erection of the height barrier contravene the Race Relations Act when it stops all high vehicles using the car park not just those of travellers. Conversely the travellers are just as able to access the car park in a car as any other group. As you say, its only inflammatory in race relation terms because of the statements made at the time. As always the answer returns to providing enough accommodation for travellers whether permanent or transit sites and dealing with unlawful behaviour properly, whoever it is.


----------



## maureenandtom

Val54 said:


> One of the best current sources for background info for local authority powers can be found here ...
> 
> 
> https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05687/SN05687.pdf
> 
> 
> One issue that we ofte overlook is how local authorities delegate their own powers.  A lot of LA's operate "cabinet" style management where the powers for a specific area of services are oversen and determined by one elected member of the majority party, a lot of decisions are delegated to the cabinet member and/or relevant senior council officer. The ability for decisions to be "called in" to a full Council meeting vary from council to council but can be quite limited.





Val54 said:


> But back to playing "devil's advocate" , how does the erection of the height barrier contravene the Race Relations Act when it stops all high vehicles using the car park not just those of travellers. Conversely the travellers are just as able to access the car park in a car as any other group. As you say, its only inflammatory in race relation terms because of the statements made at the time. As always the answer returns to providing enough accommodation for travellers whether permanent or transit sites and dealing with unlawful behaviour properly, whoever it is.


Ah yes, devolved powers.  Very useful. 

Thank you for being devil's advocate.   That's always very useful.

If you remember, Karl Read began by using the exact argument you did yourself.   (As soon as I read your comment I thought that here we have a retired local authority manager - are you?).  Karl said  that the council wished to protect the community.  _"we need to protect our communities and businesses_".    But when questioned who he wished to protect the community from he admitted it was in response to a series of problems four years ago.  _"following the bad experience we had from Travellers in 2017_"   Thus admitting that the council wished to exclude an entire race - not just the criminals among that race.  Up to then the council was in the clear. 

It would be up to the court to decide .... but I can see no way out for the council now.  The council has discriminated against a protected characteristic.  Unlawfully.  The fact that others (we) have been caught in the net is irrelevant.  The council's actions became criminal at that point - subject to the court agreeng with me - but I think a court would.  .  I can't think of a council admitting racism so openly in the past.  I've often suspected it but a council will normally (actually always up to now) say that a barrier or ban is due to motorhomers leaving rubbishe behind them.  Freedom of Information questionng always proves a lack of evidence of this and never complaints in any number.  I'm surprised Karl made the admissision.

I no longer involve myself in such matters but on this occasion I might just ask Norfolk County Council for minutes of the meeting between council workers and police. that Karl told us of.


----------



## maureenandtom

Actually. On reflection.  I do remember one.  It was the Huttoft Byelaw banning motohomers from overnighting.   The Cabinet Holder, interviewed on television = Councillor Colin Davie -  said something like = "I'm going to put a stop to this bunch of freeloaders once and for all".   He went on to claim that 200 summonses had been issued.,    When presented with a copy of the interview the Chief Executive took an immediate interest and only two summonses were actually issued = possibly had been issued before Colin's interview..  One accused pleaded guilty the other was found guilty of breaching the bye=law but that verdict was overturned on appeal with the Judge reprimanding the council for abusing its powers.   

I'm not sure if the byelaw is again being enforced but for a few years it still existed but no charges were made using it.   

I'll see if I can findt that recording.


----------



## Val54

Absolutely agree, Cabinet holders and other Councillors cannot expect to go unchallenged if they make racist or other unsubstantiated claims to justify their actions. I do remember the Huttoft saga as another example.


----------



## REC

maureenandtom said:


> That's interesting.  Thank you.   Is it North Norfolk County Council or Wells Town Council?


North Norfolk county council have sent earlier emails....Wells council replied to my email today:

Dear Ruth Cook

The parking situation in Wells is relatively complicated.

With the exception of the large car park owned by North Norfolk District Council the others are all privately owned. The town council has no car parking and has no authority or control over the way the car parks are operated.

Normally the main car park for motor homes is the car park owned by Holkham Estate, which is located at the entrance to the town on Freeman Street. However, due to operational reasons that car park is occasionally closed to vehicles over a certain height; you would need to contact the estate for an explanation.

I have circulated your email to the councillors for their consideration.

Regards

Greg Hewitt
Town Clerk

Wells-next-the-Sea Town Council
Wells Community Hospital
Mill Road
Wells-next-the-Sea
Norfolk
NR23 1RF

01328 710564  


*Sent:* 15 July 2021 17:26
*To:* clerk@wellstowncouncil.org.uk
*Subject:* Motorhome parking in Wells next Sea

I attach a copy of a message form sent to North Norfolk council who, I understand are responsible for parking in Wells Next Sea.
I feel that the it is very short sighted to completely exclude motorhomes and vehicles above 2.2m height from visiting your town. I met three other van owners in Burnham market carpark after not being able to park in your town. They all had planned to spend the day, eat and shop in Wells and will now boycott the town.
I suppose you get enough visitors not to be bothered, but why not follow the example of other towns and have a designated area with barrier entry, pay to leave, rather than this lazy ban everyone approach?

Unable to park our motorhome in Wells next Sea due to height barriers, even on the coach carpark. The attendant there informed us they were on "high alert for travellers" and just suggested we drive further to Holkham as Wells does not want us to visit. A very short sighted, lazy and unfair attitude to a large group of people who frequently spend a lot of money in the towns they visit. Why not have an area where the barrier lifts for entry and one pays to get out as in many many towns in Europe. Follow the example of Canterbury in Kent who have a designated area, two nights maximum, pay to enter and is always occupied, keeping the car park secure overnight when normally empty? Or just allow us to park in the coach area? I met several other owners on the site where we are staying and some were already aware of the attitude from Wells so avoided it and a couple of others who said they won't try. The revenue lost to the retailers in the area will continue over winter and at times when the parking may be open in future. We won't risk going and spoiling our planned day out on any other occasions, we will go somewhere that welcomes this fairly large, affluent section of the community.

Your comments would be appreciated, as this is being circulated on motorhome forums who will need to avoid Wells in future.


Interestingly no reference to 2017 travellers influx? This link explains car park arrangements, and no mention of motorhomes just caravans and trailers. No height barrier on Holkham Hall beach car park...in fact the attendant suggested we go there instead of Wells!


----------



## REC

Had a forwarded email from someone who the clerk copied in. She complained at the lack of signage warning people of height barriers "which are up more than down" and pointing out the hold ups caused by high vehicles having to turn round in the access road to the car park.
I have replied back and advised that Norfolk seem to blame the travellers incidents of 2017 for the parking restrictions. I suggested alternative options, and asked whether the discrimination against ALL high vehicles ( in order to discriminate against a section)  was unwise, even illegal.
Don't expect much joy but my little protest made me feel better.


----------



## maureenandtom

You never know.  You might be surprised.   The suggestion that their discrimination may be illegal might just trigger a response in their own defence.


----------



## QFour

We were told last year that the barriers were up because of travelers. We pointed out that there was nothing on their website to warn people about the barriers. Told we could always park in the car park outside town but its a long walk to the beach. I think they are certainly using the travellers as an excuse. They can get more cars in without the MHs parked sideways. Went last week and newly painted barriers. Went into Cromer and no barriers so someone is telling porkies. Nowhere to park in Wells so will cross off our Christmas list. Just not worth the hassle. Where the old pub was is now a car park. £12 a day. Will probably make more out of parking than the out of the pub. Wonder who bought the pub and demolished it.


----------



## Millie Master

I have read through almost all of the responses to this post and can only comment that like in almost all things in life where damnable doo gooders are concerned, they have absolutely zero knowledge of the events in question or indeed the people who are committing them.

If you doubt what I write, I suggest any and all of these doo gooders ought to go and speak to people who live near to the Tolney Lane area of Newark on Trent, Drisney Nook slightly further North or Washingborough near Lincoln and I know what the public and the police will have to say about the vast majority of the tax dodging, law breaking residents who live in them.

I am fortunate to know a lot of people who live in the Northern coastal area of Norfolk and slightly further South in Suffolk and I know how their lives have been made into living hell when certain lawless groups of our community suddenly descend on them.

As an ex resident of France as well as being the owner of 2 sites over there, I know what the instructions were that we received from the Gendarmes and they were just as soon as we started to experience any problems with certain groups, then to give them a call and they would be with us, in force and fully armed and they would be cleared out of the area immediately.
Possibly the UK ought to adopt such prompt practices?


----------



## maureenandtom

_"as soon as we started to experience any problems with certain groups, then to give them a call and they would be with us, in force and fully armed and they would be cleared out of the area immediately."_

Can't disagree with that. In fact almost fully agree.   But certain groups have to do something illegal first, yes?  Some illegal act causing problems?   Until we do something illegal we all, as citizens can come and go as we wish,  Is that right?    Same for me?   Same for you?   Same for all?


----------



## maureenandtom

_"We were instructed to raise the alarm if ANY unwanted people or groups of people decided to impose themselves on your *private *land"_

Great.   We're almost in tune.  Private Land = Owner's land, owner's rules.    In this thread we're  talking about local authorities contravening the law but on *public *land.


----------



## Fisherman

I find reading  this thread difficult.
Its plain as the nose on my face, that we are scapegoats for others poor behaviour. Covid has served to highlight were the blame lies, but the barriers and the signs keep coming like some kind of rash out of control. We are blamed for all that’s wrong by people who see themselves as righteous, whilst  we are fed to the dogs by a media frenzy that seems to be gathering pace week by week.
Oh I have witnessed some poor behaviour from some of us, but nothing nearly as poor, selfish, and degrading as I have seen from others. Yet those who litter our countryside, damage equipment supplied for their use, and leave human waste were they deposited it barely get a mention. It’s those selfish buggers in their big white vans who are the route of all that’s wrong right now. Now that’s strange because we were here before Covid, but it’s only since Covid that much of what we see now has unfolded.


----------



## trevskoda

Just went down to Antrim forum carpark this evening, new barriers for both the new opened complex and to launch your boat at slip, all this was always free but no longer, council have a large caravan/camper park at top end, nice but not for me.
Old pictures first 3, new centre with barriers last.


----------



## Millie Master

maureenandtom said:


> In this thread we're  talking about local authorities contravening the law but on *public *land.



Patently the local authorities are not contravening the law as they are undertaking their legal responsibility to protect the local community, their electorate!

Anyone who knows anything about the Traveller Community will know that in the very vast majority, they are a society who feel they are above the law.  My local MP Dr. Caroline Johnson is also a farmers wife and she is heading up a national campaign to try and protect the farming community from these groups of people, who make the lives of farmers almost impossible with thefts of excavators, quad bikes, live stock etc. etc. all running at exceptionally high levels.  These same groups are believed to be the main cause for the very significant rise in dog theft and illegal puppy breeding!

On another note, I am assured by a policeman friend that the vast majority of people in these communities will never use the facilities in their own caravans and motorhomes and will all go an defecate wherever they please to go, never clearing up their mess, and this was one of the major problems experienced by the Wells Parish Council and other PC's along the Norfolk Coast, hence the access restrictions.


----------



## Fisherman

Millie Master said:


> Patently the local authorities are not contravening the law as they are undertaking their legal responsibility to protect the local community, their electorate!
> 
> Anyone who knows anything about the Traveller Community will know that in the very vast majority, they are a society who feel they are above the law.  My local MP Dr. Caroline Johnson is also a farmers wife and she is heading up a national campaign to try and protect the farming community from these groups of people, who make the lives of farmers almost impossible with thefts of excavators, quad bikes, live stock etc. etc. all running at exceptionally high levels.  These same groups are believed to be the main cause for the very significant rise in dog theft and illegal puppy breeding!
> 
> On another note, I am assured by a policeman friend that the vast majority of people in these communities will never use the facilities in their own caravans and motorhomes and will all go an defecate wherever they please to go, never clearing up their mess, and this was one of the major problems experienced by the Wells Parish Council and other PC's along the Norfolk Coast, hence the access restrictions.


I see this the same way as paying for say a B&B but when I turn up I am told that the room is not available to me due to some poor behaviour from a previous guest. The sad reality here is most of us are in the winter of our lives, and we have paid for these carparks through taxation. Most of us are still paying taxes and yet we are being expected to accept such treatment due to the actions of a group of people who rarely pay for anything.
Yes I sympathise with their conundrum, and I agree that action has to be taken, but to in effect ban all in motorhomes whilst doing nothing to mitigate such an action seems totally unjust. And if we are willing to take this on the chin and not complain, this could be used as a template by other councils who plainly are simply anti motorhome. And I reckon that most on here are well acquainted with the travelling community, far more so than the general public. Due to the fact that we are perceived by some to be just like them, and that the actions of some in the travelling community have had a detrimental affect on us also.


----------



## Nabsim

The problem with this country is in general existing powers are not used against the correct people. If someone is terrorising an area why don’t the police and army go in mob handed wielding weapons hitting women and children and lock them up just like they did against the Peace Convoy?
Probably because they would sooner pass the buck and sit and eat donuts til they can find an unsuspecting person somewhere.
I seem to recall going back further the police had no problem going in against gangs of mods and rockers either back in the day.


----------



## GreggBear

Damn right Nabsim. The police happily went in mob handed against the convoy, & virtually eradicated it overnight. Their methods & actions were questionable at best, yet in they went anyway. I'm sure that if the same tactics were used against the Irish travellers a similar outcome would occur. The problem is that the gypsy community has been allowed to grow too big & brave due to snowflake protests of their innocence in all matters involving them. Now bolstered by the gypsy & traveller liaison office or whatever it is called, they feel confident enough to ride roughshod over the rules of society, as well as the laws of the land. 
Why are they allowed to buy land then live on it unhindered, while we are banned from staying overnight just about anywhere? If you are seen dropping a paper napkin or cigarette end, you will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, while the same councils seem happy to spend millions cleaning up after these animals have moved on from everywhere they stay.  It's madness at best, & at worst it is an insult to every law abiding member of this once great land.....


----------



## st3v3

Nabsim said:


> just like they did against the Peace Convoy?



They knew the peace convoy wouldn't fight back.


----------



## GreggBear

They didn't care weather the peace convoy would fight back or not, they went in armed & with riot shields against a group that included women & children. If they knew they wouldn't fight back, why the batons & shields?


----------



## maureenandtom

Millie Master said:


> P*atently the local authorities are not contravening the law as they are undertaking their legal responsibility to protect the local community, their electorate!*
> 
> Anyone who knows anything about the Traveller Community will know that in the very vast majority, they are a society who feel they are above the law.  My local MP Dr. Caroline Johnson is also a farmers wife and she is heading up a national campaign to try and protect the farming community from these groups of people, who make the lives of farmers almost impossible with thefts of excavators, quad bikes, live stock etc. etc. all running at exceptionally high levels.  These same groups are believed to be the main cause for the very significant rise in dog theft and illegal puppy breeding!
> 
> On another note, I am assured by a policeman friend that the vast majority of people in these communities will never use the facilities in their own caravans and motorhomes and will all go an defecate wherever they please to go, never clearing up their mess, and this was one of the major problems experienced by the Wells Parish Council and other PC's along the Norfolk Coast, hence the access restrictions.


But this power to protect me is not unlimited.  We are indebted to Val54 for his reference to local authority powers.  I'd suggest you read them - but you'd not like what you read.  https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05687/SN05687.pdf My thanks to Val54

Paraphrasing.   You can't pass a law permitting you to break a law.  




Discrimination against protected ethnic minorities, in this case Travellers, is forbidden by law.


----------



## GreggBear

Yes, but if they break a law they aren't being discriminated against. For example, if someone assaults you, that person should be arrested & prosecuted for assault. Instead, what actually happens is the perpetrator then says "I'm a member of the travelling community" & then gets protected by the same legal system he has just crossed. Summing up, if a man breaks a law, he should be dealt with as a law breaker, & not as a protected minority. If he chooses to go outside the law, he should not then be able to seek protection from prosecution through his status as a protected minority, an unlawful act is just that, irrespective of who it is committed by.....


----------



## maureenandtom

GreggBear said:


> Yes, but if they break a law they aren't being discriminated against. For example, if someone assaults you, that person should be arrested & prosecuted for assault. Instead, what actually happens is the perpetrator then says "I'm a member of the travelling community" & then gets protected by the same legal system he has just crossed. Summing up, if a man breaks a law, he should be dealt with as a law breaker, & not as a protected minority. If he chooses to go outside the law, he should not then be able to seek protection from prosecution through his status as a protected minority, an unlawful act is just that, irrespective of who it is committed by.....


If Travellers break a law and are dealt with as you and I would be dealt with then they are not being discriminated against and the protected  status does not apply.  If a Traveller assaulted me then I'd expect the criminal justice system to be applied to him equally.   Do you know this does not happen?   This is something you should take up with criminal justice enforcers.   You should question the police about why they did not take action.


----------



## GreggBear

Everyone knows this does not happen. The law is constantly thwarted by the system that darent go against these people. This happens all over the land, if you don't believe it, just read the papers. Every day stories are printed about Irish travellers dumping rubbish, running amok, & countless other contraventions, yet very few prosecutions. Police round here refuse to go into the permanent traveller camps as they are outnumbered. Yet still some people seem hell bent on painting them whiter than white, & calling for society to 'protect their rights'
When are the snowflakes going to start wanting our rights to be protected?....


----------



## Val54

maureenandtom said:


> If Travellers break a law and are dealt with as you and I would be dealt with then they are not being discriminated against and the protected  status does not apply.  If a Traveller assaulted me then I'd expect the criminal justice system to be applied to him equally.   Do you know this does not happen?   This is something you should take up with criminal justice enforcers.   You should question the police about why they did not take action.


A quick search reveals a number of local councils with information pages on this topic .......

https://www.flintshire.gov.uk/en/PD...rmance/MythsandFactsGypsiesand-travellers.pdf




__





						What happens if Gypsies, Travellers or Travelling Showpeople enter land illegally - Dorset Council
					

Information on illegal entering/occupation of land




					www.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk


----------



## alcam

GreggBear said:


> Everyone knows this does not happen. The law is constantly thwarted by the system that darent go against these people. This happens all over the land, if you don't believe it, just read the papers. Every day stories are printed about Irish travellers dumping rubbish, running amok, & countless other contraventions, yet very few prosecutions. Police round here refuse to go into the permanent traveller camps as they are outnumbered. Yet still some people seem hell bent on painting them whiter than white, & calling for society to 'protect their rights'
> When are the snowflakes going to start wanting our rights to be protected?....


Mostly correct but the same applies to football crowds etc . General police policy appears to be containment , rightly or wrongly .
On another note . I really do wish people would stop this do[o] gooders/snowflakes stuff . It really is trite nonsense


----------



## maingate

Gypsies taking over someones land is not a criminal offence, it is a Civil  matter. Perhaps that is why the Police do not steam in mob handed. This will change with the new Act of Parliament and it will be interesting to see how it is applied.


----------



## LaSource22

Goggles said:


> We came across the same thing in Cromer 2019 in the Runton Rd car park. Height barriers over because the police had had wind that gypsies were about to invade the town. Luckily you  can park in other car parks in Cromer and there is on road parking in places but it’s tight and not so nice as the Runton Rd one. You also have to get parked up fairly early.


Runton Rd car park was indeed closed to high vehicles when you say but restriction has since been removed presumably because the expected threat has subsided.


----------



## GreggBear

alcam said:


> Mostly correct but the same applies to football crowds etc . General police policy appears to be containment , rightly or wrongly .
> On another note . I really do wish people would stop this do[o] gooders/snowflakes stuff . It really is trite nonsense


Why is it trite nonsense? Do you really believe it to be so? Perhaps if irish travellers moved into your area you could experience their behaviour first hand, maybe then it might not appear quite so trite to you....


----------



## maureenandtom

Val54 said:


> A quick search reveals a number of local councils with information pages on this topic .......
> 
> https://www.flintshire.gov.uk/en/PD...rmance/MythsandFactsGypsiesand-travellers.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What happens if Gypsies, Travellers or Travelling Showpeople enter land illegally - Dorset Council
> 
> 
> Information on illegal entering/occupation of land
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk



You've done it again.  Thanks for that.


----------



## maureenandtom

GreggBear said:


> Everyone knows this does not happen. The law is constantly thwarted by the system that darent go against these people. This happens all over the land, if you don't believe it, just read the papers. Every day stories are printed about Irish travellers dumping rubbish, running amok, & countless other contraventions, yet very few prosecutions. Police round here refuse to go into the permanent traveller camps as they are outnumbered. Yet still some people seem hell bent on painting them whiter than white, & calling for society to 'protect their rights'
> *When are the snowflakes going to start wanting our rights to be protected?....*



I don't think anyone on this thread is painting anyone whiter than white.  I haven't done that.   I don't thiink of myself as a snowflake or a doo gooder but I do think that wanting to see the law abided by, especially by lawmakers, *is *protecting our rights.   I think that being selective in which laws to obey/enforce is eroding our rights.  ALL of us are losers when this happens.   Major losers too.  Starts with Gypsies and Travellers but where does it end?


----------



## GreggBear

My point exactly. I abide by all laws, people who don't should be prosecuted. Then we might see a situation where authorities know they don't need to erect barriers, as ANYONE who parks illegally or litters etc CAN & WILL be prosecuted. Shopkeepers would know that ANYONE who steals or makes threats of violence etc CAN & WILL be prosecuted.
Instead, money is spent making new laws that hinder everyone, but will only ever be obeyed by the law abiding meanwhile the real problem is, as usual, avoided by authorities who don't want to be seen as victimizing a minority....


----------



## alcam

GreggBear said:


> Why is it trite nonsense? Do you really believe it to be so? Perhaps if irish travellers moved into your area you could experience their behaviour first hand, maybe then it might not appear quite so trite to you....


I , basically , agreed with your post .
The trite nonsense comment was , I thought , obviously referring to the tedious use of do gooder/snowflake .


----------



## GreggBear

alcam said:


> I , basically , agreed with your post .
> The trite nonsense comment was , I thought , obviously referring to the tedious use of do gooder/snowflake .


So because it has become tedious we should stop mentioning it, as if it isn't a fact. I wonder how many members find mention of yet another height barrier,or no overnight parking sign tedious?....


----------



## alcam

GreggBear said:


> So because it has become tedious we should stop mentioning it, as if it isn't a fact. I wonder how many members find mention of yet another height barrier,or no overnight parking sign tedious?....


You are comparing actual things like height barriers to , as I said , trite expressions ?


----------



## GreggBear

So snowflakes, or people who seem to look for areas where they can find fault with common sense, aren't 'actual things'?


----------



## SquirrellCook

What you all seem to forget is that the law is subjective.  Generally it is applied most effectively on those that can't fight it.  Especially if you can only be tried by magistrates.  The more money or influence you have, the more likely you are get your way. Or even get away with what you are doing.  I know from bitter experience.  Don't think travelling communities are poor, anything but.  Remember crime pays!


----------



## maureenandtom

GreggBear said:


> So because it has become tedious we should stop mentioning it, as if it isn't a fact. I wonder how many members find mention of yet another height barrier,or no overnight parking sign tedious?....


Quite a few, probably.    So far as I know, this is the first time a council spokesman has claimed that height barriers have been erected to exclude a racial minority.     That is pretty momentous and if challenged the council will fight tooth and nail that was not meant.  What they meant was ..... and he excuses will begin.

There's things I grew i[ with that I always took as gospel.   I don't like that saying we hear all the time - _"It;s the few spoiling things for the rest of us"_  I don;t subscribe to that.  Punish the criminals.  Let the rest of us alone.  Here is the possibility that we can expose the whole dishonest network.  It's even possible this could demolish height barriers - make them illegal.

There's probably some legal Latin name for what I believe - No crime, no punishment.   Now that I think of it, it's probably the base for some fundamental democratic principle.   

How would you like to see notices like this:






Or even like this  Might as well take  care of all prejudices at the same time


----------



## Val54

Millie Master said:


> Patently the local authorities are not contravening the law as they are undertaking their legal responsibility to protect the local community, their electorate!
> 
> Anyone who knows anything about the Traveller Community will know that in the very vast majority, they are a society who feel they are above the law.  My local MP Dr. Caroline Johnson is also a farmers wife and she is heading up a national campaign to try and protect the farming community from these groups of people, who make the lives of farmers almost impossible with thefts of excavators, quad bikes, live stock etc. etc. all running at exceptionally high levels.  These same groups are believed to be the main cause for the very significant rise in dog theft and illegal puppy breeding!
> 
> On another note, I am assured by a policeman friend that the vast majority of people in these communities will never use the facilities in their own caravans and motorhomes and will all go an defecate wherever they please to go, never clearing up their mess, and this was one of the major problems experienced by the Wells Parish Council and other PC's along the Norfolk Coast, hence the access restrictions.


Just to add a little balance, most farm theft of high value items is by organised gangs. Most are nearly new items which the gangs clone and are then quickly exported abroad. Six high value tractors were recently recovered from Poland. On the other hand, Cheshire Police recently recovered a stolen puppy from an unauthorised encampment in Nantwich and whilst they were there found a stolen caravan. So not all police reaction is negative and stand off, and yes, travellers do thieve ......... as of course does an element of society in general.

The main fact remains that "travellers" have a right enshrined in law to their way of life. We (society in general) may have a problem with that but they are not going to go away. Simply introducing more draconian laws to move them out of an area more expediently just means they become somebody else's problem down the road. Until society acknowledges that providing sufficient transit and permanent traveller sites is the main part of the solution we will still be writing threads like this in years to come.


----------



## GreggBear

I certainly don't have a problem with the travelling way of life, only with the illegal activity these people seem to be endlessly associated with. I don't want to stop anyone being mobile, my issue is merely with the fact that illegal acts are often ignored, while we are stopped from enjoying our chosen lifestyle because of the actions of those who seem to be above the laws that so often restrict us....


----------



## Fisherman

maureenandtom said:


> Quite a few, probably.    So far as I know, this is the first time a council spokesman has claimed that height barriers have been erected to exclude a racial minority.     That is pretty momentous and if challenged the council will fight tooth and nail that was not meant.  What they meant was ..... and he excuses will begin.
> 
> There's things I grew i[ with that I always took as gospel.   I don't like that saying we hear all the time - _"It;s the few spoiling things for the rest of us"_  I don;t subscribe to that.  Punish the criminals.  Let the rest of us alone.  Here is the possibility that we can expose the whole dishonest network.  It's even possible this could demolish height barriers - make them illegal.
> 
> There's probably some legal Latin name for what I believe - No crime, no punishment.   Now that I think of it, it's probably the base for some fundamental democratic principle.
> 
> How would you like to see notices like this:
> 
> View attachment 100342
> 
> Or even like this  Might as well take  care of all prejudices at the same time
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 100343


They remind me of signs from the past outside hotels and B&Bs

NO BLACKS OR IRISH.

How times have changed, or have they


----------



## maingate

Val54 said:


> Just to add a little balance, most farm theft of high value items is by organised gangs. Most are nearly new items which the gangs clone and are then quickly exported abroad. Six high value tractors were recently recovered from Poland. On the other hand, Cheshire Police recently recovered a stolen puppy from an unauthorised encampment in Nantwich and whilst they were there found a stolen caravan. So not all police reaction is negative and stand off, and yes, travellers do thieve ......... as of course does an element of society in general.
> 
> The main fact remains that "travellers" have a right enshrined in law to their way of life. We (society in general) may have a problem with that but they are not going to go away. *Simply introducing more draconian laws to move them out of an area *more expediently just means they become somebody else's problem down the road. Until society acknowledges that providing sufficient transit and permanent traveller sites is the main part of the solution we will still be writing threads like this in years to come.


The Law changed in Ireland and a lot of Travellers moved out. Many to the UK and more to the EU. Perhaps when we bring in similar legislation they may move elsewhere.


----------



## alcam

GreggBear said:


> So snowflakes, or people who seem to look for areas where they can find fault with common sense, aren't 'actual things'?


No they are 'adjectives' . Height barriers are things you can't drive under


----------



## Val54

maingate said:


> The Law changed in Ireland and a lot of Travellers moved out. Many to the UK and more to the EU. Perhaps when we bring in similar legislation they may move elsewhere.


Maybe so, but wouldn't that now depend on the nationality of the traveller and the colour of their passport? I think the fact that the police argued against the new legislation at the consultation stage gives an inkling as to how successful they think it will be.


----------



## REC

I am amazed at the length of this thread. My main argument is that height barriers stop everyone. If the council really wanted to stop only people who may "take over" or "commit criminal acts" (whether travellers or just  a group of convoy motorhomes) then a pay to leave barrier which limits the stay (can't leave without attendant if they are there for more than prescribed time..48hrs?) should deter them without impeding everyone.  I just think that there is no innovative thinking going on just lazy blanket policies. 
Where we lived in Kent, a group of Travellers took over the grassed area outside the council offices...didn't bother with the car park at all....so I do appreciate the problems they are concerned over, but it _is _discriminatory to state that the reason for height barriers is to stop travellers so they need to be a bit more imaginative in mitigating risks whilst being fair to those who are not intending to commit criminal acts.


----------



## Millie Master

REC said:


> Then a pay to leave barrier which limits the stay (can't leave without attendant if they are there for more than prescribed time..48hrs?) should deter them without impeding everyone.  I just think that there is no innovative thinking going on just lazy blanket policies.


Having had extensive experiences of these groups, then any barrier is about as much use as a chocolate tea pot because they would simply get out their angle grinders and the entire barrier structure would be out of the way in a few seconds!


----------



## Rolyan57

No one is asking for authority to have unlimited powers.

Many many of us want authority to take a tough (legal) stance in specific circumstances against those that blight society.


----------



## maureenandtom

Rolyan57 said:


> No one is asking for authority to have unlimited powers.
> 
> Many many of us want authority to take a tough (legal) stance in specific circumstances against those that blight society.


Of course.  And I'm one of them.   But - legal action always.


----------



## Rolyan57

maureenandtom said:


> Of course.  And I'm one of them.   But - legal action always.


Absolutely. But as you know, this isn’t necessarily illegal. If people think it is, why not club together for a solicitor to challenge it, in Court if necessary.


----------



## maureenandtom

Rolyan57 said:


> Absolutely. But as you know, this isn’t necessarily illegal. If people think it is, why not club together for a solicitor to challenge it, in Court if necessary.


 
What a good idea.   Well, it's an idea anyway.   I'd support you so let us know when you want to begin and I'll put a fiver towards it.   Of course your suggestion might not have been serious.

But, I think my way would be better.

The single bit of evidence we have right now is in the posession of REC.   The email from the council spokesman saying that the barriers are a response to bad behaviour by an ethnic minority.   My guess is that the council, if asked to explain why it apparently denies the non-discrimination rights of an ethnic minority, would very quickly back-pedal and we would find that their spokesman wasn't talking just of Travellers but of all of us in motorhomes.  Travellers are collateral damage - no racial offence intended.

Would REC allow us to contact the council for an explanation?    We'd need a printout of the email – not just a copy of the text.   If no explanation then a straightforward complaint to the Norfolk Constabulary that a crime had been committed;   would they investigate please?  Copy the complaint to whatever organisation seems relevant – Gypsy and Traveller Councils, Racial Equality Authorities and whatever else we can think of.

That's what I would do.

So far REC seems to have done us proud.


----------



## Rolyan57

maureenandtom said:


> What a good idea.   Well, it's an idea anyway.   I'd support you so let us know when you want to begin and I'll put a fiver towards it.   Of course your suggestion might not have been serious.
> 
> But, I think my way would be better.
> 
> The single bit of evidence we have right now is in the posession of REC.   The email from the council spokesman saying that the barriers are a response to bad behaviour by an ethnic minority.   My guess is that the council, if asked to explain why it apparently denies the non-discrimination rights of an ethnic minority, would very quickly back-pedal and we would find that their spokesman wasn't talking just of Travellers but of all of us in motorhomes.  Travellers are collateral damage - no racial offence intended.
> 
> Would REC allow us to contact the council for an explanation?    We'd need a printout of the email – not just a copy of the text.   If no explanation then a straightforward complaint to the Norfolk Constabulary that a crime had been committed;   would they investigate please?  Copy the complaint to whatever organisation seems relevant – Gypsy and Traveller Councils, Racial Equality Authorities and whatever else we can think of.
> 
> That's what I would do.
> 
> So far REC seems to have done us proud.


You misunderstand me. I don’t think they are doing anything illegal. I certainly don’t think there is a conspiracy against Motorhome’s, despite all these that appear to desperately want one.

In my opinion they are rightly trying to stop those ‘travellers’ that cause so much violence, mess, disturbance and increased crime. Good for them, it’s a shame we don’t all stand up to them a bit more.

But I know that there are those who keep insisting that this is illegal. So, if you’re one of them, stand up and be counted. Form a group, put your money where your mouth is and pay for a legal challenge.


----------



## maureenandtom

Rolyan57 said:


> You misunderstand me. I don’t think they are doing anything illegal. I certainly don’t think there is a conspiracy against Motorhome’s, despite all these that appear to desperately want one.
> 
> *In my opinion they are rightly trying to stop those ‘travellers’ that cause so much violence, mess, disturbance and increased crime.* Good for them, it’s a shame we don’t all stand up to them a bit more.
> 
> But I know that there are those who keep insisting that this is illegal. So, if you’re one of them, stand up and be counted. Form a group, put your money where your mouth is and pay for a legal challenge.


Serious question.  I truly want to know.  Is that *all *Travellers you want to discriminate against?  Are there no law-abiding Gypsies and Travellers?  They are *all *the same violent criminals? All of them? * All *of them deserve to be discriminated against?

I think I do not misunderstand you.


----------



## Rolyan57

maureenandtom said:


> Serious question.  I truly want to know.  Is that *all *Travellers you want to discriminate against?  Are there no law-abiding Gypsies and Travellers?  They are *all *the same violent criminals? All of them? * All *of them deserve to be discriminated against?
> 
> I think I do not misunderstand you.


No, I don’t want to discriminate against all travellers. Which is why I clearly referred to “*those ‘*travellers’ who” etc. etc.

The council had an extreme problems had took steps to prevent it. Many others have witnessed this happen in their area and applaud those who try to deal with this problem. The violence. The crime. The extreme and extensive mess and filth left behind.

The point remains that if there are enough keyboard warriors who think this is illegal, there is a very simple solution. Challenge it.


----------



## trevskoda

Over here if travelers mone into places and cause trouble the paramilitary groups sort it when the police cannot and they turn a blind eye, justice and democracy is only ever restored at the end of a gun barrel.
May sound harsh to some but its a fact and true.


----------



## Robmac

Rolyan57 said:


> No, I don’t want to discriminate against all travellers. Which is why I clearly referred to “*those ‘*travellers’ who” etc. etc.
> 
> The council had an extreme problems had took steps to prevent it. *Many others have witnessed this happen in their area and applaud those who try to deal with this problem*. The violence. The crime. The extreme and extensive mess and filth left behind.
> 
> The point remains that if there are enough keyboard warriors who think this is illegal, there is a very simple solution. Challenge it.



And therein lies the problem. Councils have to act for their constituents.

The public see 'travellers' misbehaving and there is uproar, the councils tackle this by tarring all with the same brush and imposing a blanket ban, the public see action being taken.

As a group, we also have a minority who leave a mess, take up more than one parking space etc. etc. Just recently one of our members reported that 6 motorhomes were dumping sewage into a harbour. It's easier and cheaper for councils to just ban all rather than try to police it, sadly that's the way it is.

Unfortunately, the non-motorhoming public are just as blinkered. They see a big motorhome spread over a few parking spaces with chairs and tables out (we've all seen it) and they see us as rich, arrogant freeloaders and the press do nothing to change that view. The public are fickle - especially when it comes to their own back yard.


----------



## maureenandtom

Rolyan57 said:


> No, I don’t want to discriminate against all travellers. Which is why I clearly referred to “*those ‘*travellers’ who” etc. etc.
> 
> The council had an extreme problems had took steps to prevent it. Many others have witnessed this happen in their area and applaud those who try to deal with this problem. The violence. The crime. The extreme and extensive mess and filth left behind.
> 
> The point remains that if there are enough keyboard warriors who think this is illegal, there is a very simple solution. Challenge it.


_"*No, I don’t want to discriminate against all travellers"*_

Then we are of like mind.  What is your solution?   I have told you mine.

But let us begin..  Play devil's advocate. in a civilised manner, for me and bring me the answer to the first question that has to be asked.   Why do you think the council's admission that it discriminates against Travellers (the REC email)  is not a crime against the Act already quoted?    You have said you do not wish to punish the innocent.   Perhaps the council is not doing so - I may be wrong.   If there is no crime then the innocent are not being punished.   And nor are we being punished.   I think we are.  Do you think we are not?

Why do you think the council's admission that it discriminates against Travellers is not a crime against the Act already quoted?

It is a small but essential courtesy to capitalise Travellers.  We are not travellers.


----------



## maureenandtom

To save a little time. Not my way, although I have twice used it, but worthy of consideration.  It was used, I think, to famous effect by Gina Miller.

*How to make a legal challenge*.  First read this.









First we have to have an interest.  In my view, we have.  We are caught up in an imposition by the Council on Travellers.  We have to prove illegality, irrationality or gross unreasonableness.

The only piece of evidence we have so far is the email from the council's spokesman saying the barriers were erected to prevent a repetition of Travellers' criminal behaviour.    We would have to allege that other criminals do not receive blanket bans to include the innnocent and the discrimination against ALL Traveller is illegal, or irrational or unreasonable.

This could be momentous.  I believe this is the fist time any council has admitted the true reason for height barriers.  Up to this incident all councils allege bad behaviour from ALL motorhomers (EDIT - Travellers are never mentioned) – and we do not have anti-discrimination protection.  Travellers do.   It now becomes likely that councils are aware of the illegality of discrimination and always allege ALL motorhomers need to be deterred.   Such allegations have never been proved – indeed disproved when challenged to proved information under the Freedom of Information Act.

To begin proceedings we first have to notify the council that we are bringing an action.   This costs nothing.   But the council must have the right to dispute what we're saying.   We do this by following a strictly laid down L_etter Before Claim _in which we clearly put our argument.  The council then has the right to reply to us – within a strict time limit, I think 14 days – and we then have to decide whether to proceed to court.  This requires a fee – not a very large one, but a fee nevertheless.

Were I to take this route I would begin by asking REC to _Forward _the email to me, draft a Letter Before Claim and wait to see what the council had to say.

We  have to begin judicial  review procedings within a very short time.   I think three months in this case - and that would be three months from when we became aware that the counci's action was specificly against Travellers - the REC email again.

Can a rational person justify the council's decision to ban an entire ethnic minority?  A rational person here has said that he does not wish to punish the entire minority.   I think he's right;  it is not rational to ban the entire for the crimes of a few.

Unless, of course, the entire Traveller people are guilty.


----------



## Rolyan57

maureenandtom said:


> _"*No, I don’t want to discriminate against all travellers"*_
> 
> Then we are of like mind.  What is your solution?   I have told you mine.
> 
> But let us begin..  Play devil's advocate. in a civilised manner, for me and bring me the answer to the first question that has to be asked.   Why do you think the council's admission that it discriminates against Travellers (the REC email)  is not a crime against the Act already quoted?    You have said you do not wish to punish the innocent.   Perhaps the council is not doing so - I may be wrong.   If there is no crime then the innocent are not being punished.   And nor are we being punished.   I think we are.  Do you think we are not?
> 
> Why do you think the council's admission that it discriminates against Travellers is not a crime against the Act already quoted?
> 
> It is a small but essential courtesy to capitalise Travellers.  We are not travellers.





maureenandtom said:


> To save a little time. Not my way, although I have twice used it, but worthy of consideration.  It was used, I think, to famous effect by Gina Miller.
> 
> *How to make a legal challenge*.  First read this.
> 
> 
> View attachment 100713
> 
> 
> 
> First we have to have an interest.  In my view, we have.  We are caught up in an imposition by the Council on Travellers.  We have to prove illegality, irrationality or gross unreasonableness.
> 
> The only piece of evidence we have so far is the email from the council's spokesman saying the barriers were erected to prevent a repetition of Travellers' criminal behaviour.    We would have to allege that other criminals do not receive blanket bans to include the innnocent and the discrimination against ALL Traveller is illegal, or irrational or unreasonable.
> 
> This could be momentous.  I believe this is the fist time any council has admitted the true reason for height barriers.  Up to this incident all councils allege bad behaviour from ALL motorhomers (EDIT - Travellers are never mentioned) – and we do not have anti-discrimination protection.  Travellers do.   It now becomes likely that councils are aware of the illegality of discrimination and always allege ALL motorhomers need to be deterred.   Such allegations have never been proved – indeed disproved when challenged to proved information under the Freedom of Information Act.
> 
> To begin proceedings we first have to notify the council that we are bringing an action.   This costs nothing.   But the council must have the right to dispute what we're saying.   We do this by following a strictly laid down L_etter Before Claim _in which we clearly put our argument.  The council then has the right to reply to us – within a strict time limit, I think 14 days – and we then have to decide whether to proceed to court.  This requires a fee – not a very large one, but a fee nevertheless.
> 
> Were I to take this route I would begin by asking REC to _Forward _the email to me, draft a Letter Before Claim and wait to see what the council had to say.
> 
> We  have to begin judicial  review procedings within a very short time.   I think three months in this case - and that would be three months from when we became aware that the counci's action was specificly against Travellers - the REC email again.
> 
> Can a rational person justify the council's decision to ban an entire ethnic minority?  A rational person here has said that he does not wish to punish the entire minority.   I think he's right;  it is not rational to ban the entire for the crimes of a few.
> 
> Unless, of course, the entire Traveller people are guilty.


Very quickly, as I’m going out.

We need to remember that this is not the Councils formal position. It’s the case as stated by a parking attendant.

Some of us think the response is proportionate and legal. For those who don’t, the above is the best process to follow. Much better than simply complaining on here which will achieve nothing.


----------



## maureenandtom

Rolyan57 said:


> Very quickly, as I’m going out.
> 
> We need to remember that this is not the Councils formal position. It’s the case as stated by a parking attendant.
> 
> Some of us think the response is proportionate and legal. For those who don’t, the above is the best process to follow. Much better than simply complaining on here which will achieve nothing.



Just the sort of thing I would need - were I to mount an application.

You think

_Karl Read
Leisure and Locality Services Manager
+441263 516002_

is just a parking attendant?   I think he is a council spokesman.    He said

_A joint decision was made by the Police and Council Senior Management to install these barriers following the bad experience we had from travellers in August 2017, when most of the town’s pubs and cafes had to close for fear of safety of their staff and customers. The previous night they have received abuse and harassment, with travellers demanding free drinks, food and also money.

I_ think their decision was illegal, irrational and unreasonable. I'd be looking for a decent devil's advocate to tell me why their decision was legal, rational and reasonable. I've shown why I think their decision was illegal. You have stated it is unreasonable. Can we get something on the rational point? I think it is irrational because it simply displaces the criminal behaviour to another place.

Be nice to get the arguments from you in anticipation of what the council might say.


----------



## molly 2

We had an invasion of travellers in our village car park  car park ,they were removed  and hight barriers  were  erected. Never thought I would be happy to see a hight barriers  but yes I was


----------



## Fisherman

molly 2 said:


> We had an invasion of travellers in our village car park  car park ,they were removed  and hight barriers  were  erected. Never thought I would be happy to see a hight barriers  but yes I was


Molly Travellers have cutting equipment that can easily remove height barriers, and have done so up here.
Erecting height barriers simply prevents decent folk from using facilities that they have paid for.
I understand your point, and I can even sympathise with it.
And yes here's the but, I don't agree with the erection of height barriers because of the actions of travellers.
But thats just my opinion, and thats not worth much.


----------



## GreggBear

Well said. Travellers aren't bothered about barriers, the only people inconvenienced by barriers are the law abiding folk....


----------



## Rolyan57

maureenandtom said:


> Just the sort of thing I would need - were I to mount an application.
> 
> You think
> 
> _Karl Read
> Leisure and Locality Services Manager
> +441263 516002_
> 
> is just a parking attendant?   I think he is a council spokesman.    He said
> 
> _A joint decision was made by the Police and Council Senior Management to install these barriers following the bad experience we had from travellers in August 2017, when most of the town’s pubs and cafes had to close for fear of safety of their staff and customers. The previous night they have received abuse and harassment, with travellers demanding free drinks, food and also money.
> 
> I_ think their decision was illegal, irrational and unreasonable. I'd be looking for a decent devil's advocate to tell me why their decision was legal, rational and reasonable. I've shown why I think their decision was illegal. You have stated it is unreasonable. Can we get something on the rational point? I think it is irrational because it simply displaces the criminal behaviour to another place.
> 
> Be nice to get the arguments from you in anticipation of what the council might say.


That’s great to hear it was a formal response from the Council. There’s even less reason for you to put things off now.

There’s no need for me or anyone else to second guess what the council might say. All that’s needed is for you to start your legal challenge. The longer you prevaricate the harder it will be.


----------



## molly 2

molly 2 said:


> We had an invasion of travellers in our village car park  car park ,they were removed  and hight barriers  were  erected. Never thought I would be happy to see a hight barriers  but yes I was


The car park is run for a sports centre and had to close down for staff safety , local pubs were damaged and shop owners were abused , can you imagine the receptionist  telling the travellers  no you can't use our toilets  and showers , no returns since barriers were fitted.,


----------



## maureenandtom

Rolyan57 said:


> That’s great to hear it was a formal response from the Council. There’s even less reason for you to put things off now.
> 
> There’s no need for me or anyone else to second guess what the council might say. All that’s needed is for you to start your legal challenge. The longer you prevaricate the harder it will be.


Ah, the good old playground arguments.   Never fail to amuse.  You must try to keep up.

I refer you to Post 108.


----------



## GreggBear

molly 2 said:


> The car park is run for a sports centre and had to close down for staff safety , local pubs were damaged and shop owners were abused , can you imagine the receptionist  telling the travellers  no you can't use our toilets  and showers , no returns since barriers were fitted.,


And Theron lies the problem. Receptionist should be able to ring the law, & the law should respond & deal with it. Why should any staff member in any establishment be expected to deal with what is essentially an illegal act? If the law used the powers they already have, there would be no need for barriers etc....


----------



## maureenandtom

GreggBear said:


> And Theron lies the problem. Receptionist should be able to ring the law, & the law should respond & deal with it. Why should any staff member in any establishment be expected to deal with what is essentially an illegal act? If the law used the powers they already have, there would be no need for barriers etc....


Thank you.   My point of view exactly.


----------



## Fisherman

GreggBear said:


> And Theron lies the problem. Receptionist should be able to ring the law, & the law should respond & deal with it. Why should any staff member in any establishment be expected to deal with what is essentially an illegal act? If the law used the powers they already have, there would be no need for barriers etc....


So the long and the short of it is.
A bunch of travellers cause bother before they are evicted from a carpark previously used by cars and motorhomes.
The council eventually get rid of the travellers and the motorhomes.

Now thats what I call natural justice EH


----------



## GreggBear

Fisherman said:


> So the long and the short of it is.
> A bunch of travellers cause bother before they are evicted from a carpark previously used by cars and motorhomes.
> The council eventually get rid of the travellers and the motorhomes.
> 
> Now thats what I call natural justice EH


Not what I'm saying. The law should be empowered to use existing laws to deal with illegal traveller activity. The travellers would then be less likely to be so offensive, as they would be aware that their behaviour would be swiftly dealt with. "Peace " would then return & the need for barriers would go away. Not rocket science, before the country was run by pussies, lawlessness was much less prevalent....


----------



## molly 2

Ring the law these days  and the standard answer is we can't do anything  , especially when reporting open drug dealing  ,going way of topic so I'm out sorry


----------



## GreggBear

molly 2 said:


> Ring the law these days  and the standard answer is we can't do anything  , especially when reporting open drug dealing  ,going way of topic so I'm out


My point exactly. If the present laws aren't being upheld, what's the point introducing more new laws? They won't be used against the people that cause 99% of the problems, but will be used against decent law abiding people, who are the only ones likely to adhere to them. That way the powers that be can say "look, our new laws are working, we moved on some people in motorhomes".......


----------



## Fisherman

GreggBear said:


> Not what I'm saying. The law should be empowered to use existing laws to deal with illegal traveller activity. The travellers would then be less likely to be so offensive, as they would be aware that their behaviour would be swiftly dealt with. "Peace " would then return & the need for barriers would go away. Not rocket science, before the country was run by pussies, lawlessness was much less prevalent....


I was not having a go at you Greg, I was actually supporting you.
I think if you read my previous posts you will see that.
But the bottom line with regards to Mollies carpark still stands.
The council have now dealt with the travellers *and us *for the actions of the travellers. But we won’t cut down the barriers, they might.


----------



## maingate

Of course the Police will not be interested, they are much busier doing other things ....

.... like this ****. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1421384031229423617


----------



## GreggBear

Sorry if I came over wrong, wasn't having a go. I agree on your points, whatever the circumstances, we as law abiding holidaymakers have now got one less option to park up at. Not sure what the future will hold for us or motorhoming in general, I try not to get wound up & just enjoy the freedom we have left, such as it is. Read a report the other day that said 1 in 6 UK adults have now converted a van or have plans to convert one. That's a lot of bodies, hopefully they can find a way to all pull together for the greater good....


----------



## GreggBear

maingate said:


> Of course the Police will not be interested, they are much busier doing other things ....
> 
> .... like this ****.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1421384031229423617


At least they're not wasting our time & taxes then eh....


----------



## Rolyan57

So I say again, for those who are disappointed and those who insist it’s not legal, why not raise a legal challenge against it.


----------



## Val54

There is already a simple, lawful answer. If the relevant local authority for the area had provided the required number of permanent and transit Traveller pitches, the police already have the powers to disperse the unauthorised encampment without waiting for the courts. Of course most Councils do not fully meet their Traveller obligations to allow these police powers to be used. A judicial review could produce a landmark decision but it would only apply to this particular decision. Other councils may not display the same "honesty/mistake" in justifying their actions.  The council and police will argue that it was expedient and an action of last resort in the circumstances. An equally interesting point would be to try and get a judicial comment on why that decision hasn't been reviewed given the impact of the height barrier on the wider population. That would give potential ammunition for other examples. There's another £5 here.


----------



## Tookey

Rolyan57 said:


> So I say again, for those who are disappointed and those who insist it’s not legal, why not raise a legal challenge against it.


I'm disappointed and suspect it's not legal, but I've just turned away OS surveyors from my door explaining that it's my dirty washing pile and not recent tectonic activity and I got an email from the WHO stating once they've finished with Wuhan they want to check my bathroom! Time for legal battles, hah, I'm now off spend 15 minutes trying to brush my 3yr olds teeth, maybe I should try the legal battle, that one I might win


----------



## Rolyan57

Tookey said:


> I'm disappointed and suspect it's not legal, but I've just turned away OS surveyors from my door explaining that it's my dirty washing pile and not recent tectonic activity and I got an email from the WHO stating once they've finished with Wuhan they want to check my bathroom! Time for legal battles, hah, I'm now off spend 15 minutes trying to brush my 3yr olds teeth, maybe I should try the legal battle, that one I might win


No one said it would be easy. But if it’s so clearly ‘illegal’, as some suggest, I would have hoped someone could have initiated the challenge, using the process outlined, to win what could be such a momentous landmark ruling.

You could have been the Motorhomer’s urban legend.


----------



## REC

maureenandtom said:


> What a good idea.   Well, it's an idea anyway.   I'd support you so let us know when you want to begin and I'll put a fiver towards it.   Of course your suggestion might not have been serious.
> 
> But, I think my way would be better.
> 
> The single bit of evidence we have right now is in the posession of REC.   The email from the council spokesman saying that the barriers are a response to bad behaviour by an ethnic minority.   My guess is that the council, if asked to explain why it apparently denies the non-discrimination rights of an ethnic minority, would very quickly back-pedal and we would find that their spokesman wasn't talking just of Travellers but of all of us in motorhomes.  Travellers are collateral damage - no racial offence intended.
> 
> Would REC allow us to contact the council for an explanation?    We'd need a printout of the email – not just a copy of the text.   If no explanation then a straightforward complaint to the Norfolk Constabulary that a crime had been committed;   would they investigate please?  Copy the complaint to whatever organisation seems relevant – Gypsy and Traveller Councils, Racial Equality Authorities and whatever else we can think of.
> 
> That's what I would do.
> 
> So far REC seems to have done us proud.


hi there, I have had no further reply....But if you would like the emails pm me your email and  I'll endeavour to forward them to you. I think, following this correspondence,  that the car park we went to is actually run by Holkham Hall Estates....But although the town clerk forwarded the email to them, had no further comment.
Sorry for the delay, had a lot going on lately and missed this post!
Ruth


----------



## maureenandtom

REC said:


> hi there, I have had no further reply....But if you would like the emails pm me your email and  I'll endeavour to forward them to you. I think, following this correspondence,  that the car park we went to is actually run by Holkham Hall Estates....But although the town clerk forwarded the email to them, had no further comment.
> Sorry for the delay, had a lot going on lately and missed this post!
> Ruth


Thanks Ruth pm on its way.


----------



## Nabsim

Personally I don’t think the height barriers are anything to do with travellers per se, I think they want to stop as many motorhomes and camper vans as they can. I bet these people hate the fact smaller vans can fit under the barrier. 

Why would they want anyone who can prepare and eat their own food and drink without having to go to cafe’s and restaurants. Why would they want views blocking out, most can see over cars from property. Everyone knows if you live in a property you have absolute right to stop anyone parking in your street, blocking your view etc etc. Councils and media don’t need to portray us in a bad light a lot go out their way to do this themselves.

p.s. only the first paragraph is meant to be my real opinion, while I believe there is a lot of truth in the second paragraph it is meant in defilement


----------



## Tookey

Height barriers cost a grand and salaried workers will erect them, they are cheap 'vote winners', they can be physically seen by the tax payer which is always popular and on a more subconscious level barriers say to the local voter 'we care about you, we protect you, we don't want to spend your money cleaning up, we have your interests at heart'


----------



## Norfolk NewBoy

Perhaps you're unaware of the parking in Wells? The Holkham Estate carpark is surrounded by open countryside with the nearest building probably 100metres away. It was "built" approx 2y ago and has a lovely concrete road in (and obviously out), lots of space and stone parking areas, mainly backing onto grass, with easy overhangs.

There is some on-street parking around the town but most is fairly congested and is mainly time-limited.

Holkham also own the Beach road carpark which is approx 0.5 miles from town and I think they have installed height barriers there.

Once upon a time we were allowed to park on the quayside (£4.50 for 24h) which has superb views up the estuary and is only metres from the fish n chip shops!

Gordon


----------



## yorkslass

Rolyan57 said:


> No one said it would be easy. But if it’s so clearly ‘illegal’, as some suggest, I would have hoped someone could have initiated the challenge, using the process outlined, to win what could be such a momentous landmark ruling.
> 
> You could have been the Motorhomer’s urban legend.


Time to become an urban legend yourself?


----------



## Rolyan57

yorkslass said:


> Time to become an urban legend yourself?


If I thought it was illegal, yes I would do something. That’s the difference.


----------



## maureenandtom

Rolyan57 said:


> If I thought it was illegal, yes I would do something. That’s the difference.


 
Thank you.  That's an excellent reason for not doing anything and a good reason too for not supporting those who might.

The council spokesman said the height barriers were in response to criminal behaviour from Travellers.   The effect of the barriers is to exclude all Travcllers in high sided vehicles and this, he states, is his intention – to protect communities and businesses from Traveller criminal behaviour. I think this makes them discriminatory and in contravention of legislation.  Had he said, like all other councils before him, that the barriers were in response to rubbish left by motorhomers and substantial numbers of complaints from residents then he would have been in the clear  No discrimination.  But he didn't.  He wishes to provide protection from Travllers.  So excludes all who might be Travellers.

The Commissioner for Human Rights wrote to the Speakers of the House of Commons and House of Lords on 1st July this year on a subject we've discussed here before.    I quote from his letter:

“_*While the government can legitimately pursue actions to prevent public disorder, crime or nuisance, these should be clearly circumscribed, and any measures taken in this respect should be proportionate and non-discriminatory “*
https://rm.coe.int/letter-to-rt-hon-sir-lindsay-hoyle-mp-speaker-of-the-house-of-commons-/1680a305a3_

I can find no evidence, though I've searched, that makes the council action anything other than unlawful.   On the other hand I can find lots of evidence that their action has no lawful basis.

Can I ask?    You believe the council action is legal.   Is this just instinct?   Nothing wrong with instinct – very often it proves to be accurate.   But it would be grand if you could explain why the council is not being discriminatory against an ethnic minority? Not only grand but very useful because the council will now have to wriggle (if should someone complain to it) and somehow explain how they do not contravene equality legislation.

Please?   Your evidence?


----------



## Fisherman

Rolyan57 said:


> If I thought it was illegal, yes I would do something. That’s the difference.


It always worries me when laymen talk about legality.
I tend to leave my health to medical professionals, my plumbing to a good plumber, and any legal matters to those qualified to deal with such matters.
But I have nothing against instinct, and a sense of injustice.
And when I hear of councils banning law abiding, tax paying, on the whole elderly people, who have worked hard all of their lives due to the actions of some diametrically opposed to us, that sense of injustice comes right to the fore.

May I respectfully request that you look at this from a less dispassionate viewpoint, and allow any sense of possible injustice to flourish. Because for people like us that’s all we have.

Just imagine this council attempted to ban cyclists, dog walkers, or any other group, There would be a public outcry, and therein lies my sense of injustice. Instead of that outcry we have people talking about legalities, when this has more to do with a moral injustice. And legal or iIlegal there are times when that sense of moral injustice, should take precedence and eventually become a legal injustice. Which in my honest opinion that’s exactly what it is, but then that’s not for me to decide now is it.


----------



## Robmac

Fisherman said:


> It always worries me when laymen talk about legality.
> I tend to leave my health to medical professionals, my plumbing to a good plumber, and any legal matters to those qualified to deal with such matters.
> But I have nothing against instinct, and a sense of injustice.
> And when I hear of councils banning law abiding, tax paying, on the whole elderly people, who have worked hard all of their lives due to the actions of some diametrically opposed to us, that sense of injustice comes right to the fore.
> 
> May I respectfully request that you look at this from less dispassionate viewpoint, and allow any sense of possible injustice to flourish. Because for people like us that’s all we have.
> 
> Just imagine this council attempted to ban cyclists, dog walkers, or any other group, There would be a public outcry, and therein lies my sense of injustice. Instead of that outcry we have people talking about legalities, when this has more to do with a moral injustice. And legal or iIlegal there are times when that sense of moral injustice, should take precedence and eventually become a legal injustice. Which in my honest opinion that’s exactly what it is, but then that’s not for me to decide now is it.



Well said Bill and in my heart I know you are right.

I still sometimes think though that some sleeping dogs are best left to let lie in case they come back and bite you in the ass! It's a tricky subject.


----------



## Fisherman

Robmac said:


> Well said Bill and in my heart I know you are right.
> 
> I still sometimes think though that some sleeping dogs are best left to let lie in case they come back and bite you in the ass! It's a tricky subject.


I do understand your viewpoint Rob, and I really do think you have a point.
But I sometimes wonder why we are treated so poorly, and I just cannot hang back. Yes we may open a can of worms, but I think it’s time it was opened.
My fear is if we just sit back and accept the crap that is poured down on us from these councils and a totally biased media then things will only get a whole lot worse. The way I see this is, yes action at worse will only accelerate what is going to happen anyway, and inaction can only lead to one outcome. Whereas with action we have a chance to change what looks like being inevitable.


----------



## maureenandtom

Robmac said:


> Well said Bill and in my heart I know you are right.
> 
> *I still sometimes think though that some sleeping dogs are best left to let lie in case they come back and bite you in the ass! It's a tricky subject.*


 
Imagine what might happen.  Let's say...   The council admits it has acted unlawfully and opens the barriers,   If, as many seem to believe, this opens the door to encampments of Travellers who behave criminally and whose wrong-doings are ignored by the criminal justice system then who gets the blame?

Likely it would be those who campaigned that this council should abide by the law.   And we become targets because we enabled the criminals.  And the entire motorhomer population gets blamed because I'd, me alone,  thought to challenge the council?

No I'd not thought of that one.  But I have now.   And it;'s an uncomfortable thought.   Does it mean that self-interest should tale precedence over the rule of law - what I see as he rule of law.  I might be wrong - maybe the council is not guilty of unlawful discrimination.


----------



## Robmac

maureenandtom said:


> Imagine what might happen.  Let's say...   The council admits it has acted unlawfully and opens the barriers,   If, as many seem to believe, this opens the door to encampments of Travellers who behave criminally and whose wrong-doings are ignored by the criminal justice system then who gets the blame?
> 
> Likely it would be those who campaigned that this council should abide by the law.   And we become targets because we enabled the criminals.  And the entire motorhomer population gets blamed because I'd, me alone,  thought to challenge the council?
> 
> No I'd not thought of that one.  But I have now.   And it;'s an uncomfortable thought.   Does it mean that self-interest should tale precedence over the rule of law - what I see as he rule of law.  I might be wrong - maybe the council is not guilty of unlawful discrimination.



The council could indeed be found guilty of breaking the law for stating the reasons they put the barriers in place, I don't know to be honest. That doesn't mean that they won't at some point reinstate them for some other concocted reason. There are some big egos amongst councils, and do I think they would hold a grudge - probably. And of course they would have the backup of a lot of their constituents.

However, I am not a campaigner, not just regarding wildcamping but in most walks of life. I find it to be a bit like p***ing in the wind, so I will watch with interest and see what actually happens.

For what it's worth, I hope you are successful in any action you take.


----------



## Rolyan57

maureenandtom said:


> Thank you.  That's an excellent reason for not doing anything and a good reason too for not supporting those who might.
> 
> The council spokesman said the height barriers were in response to criminal behaviour from Travellers.   The effect of the barriers is to exclude all Travcllers in high sided vehicles and this, he states, is his intention – to protect communities and businesses from Traveller criminal behaviour. I think this makes them discriminatory and in contravention of legislation.  Had he said, like all other councils before him, that the barriers were in response to rubbish left by motorhomers and substantial numbers of complaints from residents then he would have been in the clear  No discrimination.  But he didn't.  He wishes to provide protection from Travllers.  So excludes all who might be Travellers.
> 
> The Commissioner for Human Rights wrote to the Speakers of the House of Commons and House of Lords on 1st July this year on a subject we've discussed here before.    I quote from his letter:
> 
> “_*While the government can legitimately pursue actions to prevent public disorder, crime or nuisance, these should be clearly circumscribed, and any measures taken in this respect should be proportionate and non-discriminatory “*
> https://rm.coe.int/letter-to-rt-hon-sir-lindsay-hoyle-mp-speaker-of-the-house-of-commons-/1680a305a3_
> 
> I can find no evidence, though I've searched, that makes the council action anything other than unlawful.   On the other hand I can find lots of evidence that their action has no lawful basis.
> 
> Can I ask?    You believe the council action is legal.   Is this just instinct?   Nothing wrong with instinct – very often it proves to be accurate.   But it would be grand if you could explain why the council is not being discriminatory against an ethnic minority? Not only grand but very useful because the council will now have to wriggle (if should someone complain to it) and somehow explain how they do not contravene equality legislation.
> 
> Please?   Your evidence?


As I’ve explained before, in my *opinion* this Council have not acted unlawfully.

I’m still rather surprised why you seem so intent on continually questioning me, rather than tackling the Council itself.  If you believe they have acted unlawfully, challenge them. While accepting that others may have a different opinion to you.


----------



## Val54

I'm not local to the area but I'm confused as to why a Council spokesperson commented on height barriers erected on a car park that appears to be owned/managed by the Holkham Estate?


----------



## REC

Val54 said:


> I'm not local to the area but I'm confused as to why a Council spokesperson commented on height barriers erected on a car park that appears to be owned/managed by the Holkham Estate?


I was confused about this too. But I suppose  the Norfolk Council has height barriers at their car park also, and my complaint was that there was NOWHERE to park in Wells for us. The Weeks council clerk has forwarded my complaint to " the car park operators" so hopefully Holkham will reply. I passed the beach road carpark (is that the same as Queen Anne's Drive?,)  and could see no barriers there. My original post was really to warn others not to waste time stopping....but if others are willing to take the issue up, they have my full support.


----------



## Rolyan57

Fisherman said:


> It always worries me when laymen talk about legality.
> I tend to leave my health to medical professionals, my plumbing to a good plumber, and any legal matters to those qualified to deal with such matters.
> But I have nothing against instinct, and a sense of injustice.
> And when I hear of councils banning law abiding, tax paying, on the whole elderly people, who have worked hard all of their lives due to the actions of some diametrically opposed to us, that sense of injustice comes right to the fore.
> 
> May I respectfully request that you look at this from a less dispassionate viewpoint, and allow any sense of possible injustice to flourish. Because for people like us that’s all we have.
> 
> Just imagine this council attempted to ban cyclists, dog walkers, or any other group, There would be a public outcry, and therein lies my sense of injustice. Instead of that outcry we have people talking about legalities, when this has more to do with a moral injustice. And legal or iIlegal there are times when that sense of moral injustice, should take precedence and eventually become a legal injustice. Which in my honest opinion that’s exactly what it is, but then that’s not for me to decide now is it.


I think you misunderstand me Bill.

I fully understand a feeling of injustice amongst motorhomers, just as I understand normal, law abiding, tax paying members of society who are desperate to avoid these criminals descending again.

My point has always been that if someone genuinely believes that it’s definitely unlawful, then there are processes to follow, which would result in this being changed.

Whereas those who believe it’s lawful but ‘desperately unfair’ will have to try a different approach. Preferably one that doesn’t start with “we’re victims of a huge conspiracy”.


----------



## Fisherman

Rolyan57 said:


> I think you misunderstand me Bill.
> 
> I fully understand a feeling of injustice amongst motorhomers, just as I understand normal, law abiding, tax paying members of society who are desperate to avoid these criminals descending again.
> 
> My point has always been that if someone genuinely believes that it’s definitely unlawful, then there are processes to follow, which would result in this being changed.
> 
> Whereas those who believe it’s lawful but ‘desperately unfair’ will have to try a different approach. Preferably one that doesn’t start with “we’re victims of a huge conspiracy”.


I wouldn't say that we are the victims of any conspiracy.
I would say that we are the victims of vindictive narrow minded, ill-informed nimbys, who know very little about us, and base their judgement in many cases by how we are portrayed in the media. An ex poster on here quoted a case which summed up our predicament.
Whilst on a meet with around thirty other vans in St Andrews he took his dog for an early morning walk.
He met a lady who was not aware that he was one of the motorhome owners.
They got chatting about his dog, then the conversation changed to discussion about the motorhomes several hundred yards away.
The lady stated that they scared her and made her feel unsafe.
She assumed that they were travellers about to wreck the place.
But when she was informed who he was and why they were there, she changed her tune.
Also the night before a very large order was placed at the local chippy for hundreds of pounds of food.
He also reckoned that several thousand pounds had been spent in the town.
Sadly the chippy won't be able to receive such an order again, because St Andrews bans all motorhomes from overnighting.

Also Tom has done more to support our cause than anyone I know.
If he wants to take a back seat and let others (some are taking up this matter), then I reckon he is entitled to.


----------



## Rolyan57

So do I. No one is specifically saying Tom should do this or that.

I agree it’s bad when people get the wrong impression about motorhomers (although I understand their fear). I agree that the media is partly to blame for the fear. I believe motorhome rental and sale companies are partly responsible, by telling new owners/renters that they can camp anywhere etc.  Add to that irresponsible motorhomers (owners and renters) and there are more problems to come.  But surely those aren’t the issue here.

Im just not convinced that what the Council did was *unlawful.  *So my suggestion to those in general (not individuals) that tried to insist that it was, was to challenge it via the legal process.

Other than that I’m sure we’re almost on the same page.


----------



## Fisherman

Rolyan57 said:


> So do I. No one is specifically saying Tom should do this or that.
> 
> I agree it’s bad when people get the wrong impression about motorhomers (although I understand their fear). I agree that the media is partly to blame for the fear. I believe motorhome rental and sale companies are partly responsible, by telling new owners/renters that they can camp anywhere etc.  Add to that irresponsible motorhomers (owners and renters) and there are more problems to come.  But surely those aren’t the issue here.
> 
> Im just not convinced that what the Council did was *unlawful.  *So my suggestion to those in general (not individuals) that tried to insist that it was, was to challenge it via the legal process.
> 
> Other than that I’m sure we’re almost on the same page.


I don’t claim to fully comprehend the legality or otherwise of what what was done. But I do think that the council were wrong to do what they did.
Yes obviously we have some idiots amongst us, but then so do other groups who are not prevented from using some public car parks.
And other than through ignorance I don’t understand their fear.
Much of this fear comes from what they have read and watched on tv.


----------



## vindiboy

We have just spent 3 nights on a CCC THS in Wells next the Sea at a school in Polka Road, I saw numerous Motorhomes parked in this road and other side streets also on the the road out to the beach where the Little train ran, it all looked easy enough to park for the day to me?


----------



## Rolyan57

Fisherman said:


> I don’t claim to fully comprehend the legality or otherwise of what what was done. But I do think that the council were wrong to do what they did.
> Yes obviously we have some idiots amongst us, but then so do other groups who are not prevented from using some public car parks.
> And other than through ignorance I don’t understand their fear.
> Much of this fear comes from what they have read and watched on tv.


I know this isn’t a popular thought, but have you considered the possibility that it’s as simple as has been discussed.

That the problem is simply a council responding to genuine fears of another takeover by Travellers (who’s travels and potential destinations are tracked and reported), with all the violence, crime, intimidation and extreme social upheaval that came with it.

That motorhomers as we know them have not been targeted and that we’re simply collateral damage caused by the initial problem.

Just a thought.


----------



## maureenandtom

Rolyan57 said:


> I know this isn’t a popular thought, but have you considered the possibility that it’s as simple as has been discussed.
> That the problem is simply a council responding to genuine fears of another takeover by Travellers (who’s travels and potential destinations are tracked and reported), with all the violence, crime, intimidation and extreme social upheaval that came with it.
> *That motorhomers as we know them have not been targeted and that we’re simply collateral damage caused by the initial problem.
> 
> Just a thought.*



*But not an original thought*.  See Post No 24 above (or below even)



maureenandtom said:


> They become guilty of racial discrimination, even if they include us, as soon as they admit their target is the Traveller. *We are simply collateral damage in their Final Solution to the Traveller Problem.*



 Not an original thought!

You are simply argumentative. and of no help on either side of the debate.

If you are to quote someone else's words and opinions then you should at the very least credit the originator - not try to pass them off as your own.


----------



## Rolyan57

maureenandtom said:


> *But not an original thought*.  See Post No 24 above (or below even)
> 
> 
> 
> Not an original thought!
> 
> You are simply argumentative. and of no help on either side of the debate.
> 
> If you are to quote someone else's words and opinions then you should at the very least credit the originator - not try to pass them off as your own


You really do appear to have a problem, and you clearly are more interested in insulting me than engaging in rational and polite debate.

The irony of you claiming others are argumentative is not lost on me. So the comments remain, and if you really need to take it personally, so be it.


----------



## Fisherman

Unless the combatants call a ceasefire, sadly a very relevant thread is in danger of being closed. Can we simply not agree to disagree, and get things back on track. Some on here value this thread, and would be saddened to see its closure. You know we have a pm system on here, if you wish to continue with the tit for tat, why not use this instead. Just a thought.


----------



## Rolyan57

Fisherman said:


> Unless the combatants call a ceasefire, sadly a very relevant thread is in danger of being closed. Can we simply not agree to disagree, and get things back on track. Some on here value this thread, and would be saddened to see its closure. You know we have a pm system on here, if you wish to continue with the tit for tat, why not use this instead. Just a thought.


I’m more than happy to agree to disagree and move on. Although it’s a shame that I’m discouraged from politely responding when a particular person repeatedly and consistently makes criticism of every post I make.

I don’t regard it as tit for tat, as all I’ve done is politely respond to the continued insults. But yes, in the interests of keeping this thread alive, I’m more than happy to take your advice and not respond any further to the poster in question, other than by pm if necessary.


----------



## maureenandtom

You're right.   Fire ceased.   I will no longer respond to efforts to engage me in arguments.  But I welcome debate and original viewpoints from anywhere.  Always useful.  PMs welcome,


----------



## Tookey

Tom and Rolyan's interaction does highlight a real stumbling block which is we are a divided community. Even the growth of Aires divides opinions, myself and I believe Robmac (therefore likely others) are concerned that there availability have the potential to assist authorities in the banning of wildcamping. Authorities frequently use the argument that they provided the 'travelling' community with legal sites so therefore illegal settlements are even less acceptable, a similar argument could be used with Aires in the future

We are also a submissive population in the UK, to only lightly touch the subject of politics and remain within forum rules, but relevant to the thread I suggest the rights of people are being eroded with little question by the masses.

With regards to combating the removal of wildcamping locations and its legality I for one am so ill informed and have such little understanding of the technicalities that for me to join the fight on that level would be fruitless. I can and have questioned authorities in layman emails but this is of little concern to said authorities.

There exists a distinct separation between the younger persons campervan/vanlife hobby and the generally older persons big white motorhome hobby although they are the same! This is unfortunate as the enthusiam of the young combined with the wisdom of the older leads to a stronger movement whatever the social battle is.

Support from the public and the media presently is virtually non existant. Support from the public is of great assistance to any social movement, even a state of apathy isn't too bad but a movement when members of the public are against the organisations aim is disastrous in a vote based system.

'The goal', an essential part of any social fight lacks from this arena, even on this site there are sweeping statements made about what the community wants and doesn't like but no clear identifiable aim.

Personally I will maintain a Rosa Park attitude and sit (park) in a location unless I know this will do more damage than good for wildcamping or that I am confident that the signage is legal and I could face a fine (I am not as brave as her!).

The points above need to be reversed, starting with obtainable goals which include dissolving the divide between the young T5 campers and the 60k big white motorhome owners. Public opinion can also be shifted with a recognisable organisation that can be as simple as 'motorhomes against litter', this is achievable, creates unity and very importantly establishes avenues of communication.

 I live no where near the coast and I dont surf but I am still aware of 'surfers against sewage' and their goal, I don't actually actively support it but it is an organisation I think of in a positive light and I am sympathetic to their cause. This is a state we need to reach.

Although different and arguable conflicting aims an understanding of how Campra have made positive steps would also be useful as it involves the same community


----------



## Val54

Tookey said:


> Tom and Rolyan's interaction does highlight a real stumbling block which is we are a divided community. Even the growth of Aires divides opinions, myself and I believe Robmac (therefore likely others) are concerned that there availability have the potential to assist authorities in the banning of wildcamping. Authorities frequently use the argument that they provided the 'travelling' community with legal sites so therefore illegal settlements are even less acceptable, a similar argument could be used with Aires in the future
> 
> We are also a submissive population in the UK, to only lightly touch the subject of politics and remain within forum rules, but relevant to the thread I suggest the rights of people are being eroded with little question by the masses.
> 
> With regards to combating the removal of wildcamping locations and its legality I for one am so ill informed and have such little understanding of the technicalities that for me to join the fight on that level would be fruitless. I can and have questioned authorities in layman emails but this is of little concern to said authorities.
> 
> There exists a distinct separation between the younger persons campervan/vanlife hobby and the generally older persons big white motorhome hobby although they are the same! This is unfortunate as the enthusiam of the young combined with the wisdom of the older leads to a stronger movement whatever the social battle is.
> 
> Support from the public and the media presently is virtually non existant. Support from the public is of great assistance to any social movement, even a state of apathy isn't too bad but a movement when members of the public are against the organisations aim is disastrous in a vote based system.
> 
> 'The goal', an essential part of any social fight lacks from this arena, even on this site there are sweeping statements made about what the community wants and doesn't like but no clear identifiable aim.
> 
> Personally I will maintain a Rosa Park attitude and sit (park) in a location unless I know this will do more damage than good for wildcamping or that I am confident that the signage is legal and I could face a fine (I am not as brave as her!).
> 
> The points above need to be reversed, starting with obtainable goals which include dissolving the divide between the young T5 campers and the 60k big white motorhome owners. Public opinion can also be shifted with a recognisable organisation that can be as simple as 'campers against litter', this is achievable, creates unity and very importantly establishes avenues of communication.
> 
> I live no where near the coast and I dont surf but I am still aware of 'surfers against sewage' and their goal, I don't actually actively support it but it is an organisation I think of in a positive light and I am sympathetic to their cause. This is a state we need to reach.
> 
> Although different and arguable conflicting aims an understanding of how Campra have made positive steps would also be useful as it involves the same community


Its a classic case of "we don't know who we are" in the sense of being able to define what those obtainable goals would be. Although this is a "wild camping" forum (and I don't want to get into any change the name game), I suspect, but don't know, that those members on here who only wild camp are a minority. For example with the changing times, we wild camp less, use CL's etc more, and only use large sites as a necessity. Information is key to defining goals so maybe some form of poll to get a feel for the state of the membership?


----------



## Tookey

Val54 said:


> Its a classic case of "we don't know who we are" in the sense of being able to define what those obtainable goals would be. Although this is a "wild camping" forum (and I don't want to get into any change the name game), I suspect, but don't know, that those members on here who only wild camp are a minority. For example with the changing times, we wild camp less, use CL's etc more, and only use large sites as a necessity. Information is key to defining goals so maybe some form of poll to get a feel for the state of the membership?


I suggest a poll which 'cuts to the chase' would be of more use. Identifying those that are prepared to be active in any form in assisting in the prevention of overnight parking in public locations would be of more use. Potentially there are forum users that do not wildcamp for their own personal reasons but sympathise with the concern of the erosion of rights of those who do.

I would also suggest that the assistance of someone with some understanding of the law would be necessary to identify what an aim should be, pick your battles. Like discussions on here a vague poll would likely not be productive.

An example as I am struggling to make myself clear; 'Would you _*actively *_support a fight against the loss of overnight parking locations on land owned by *X' *poll would be far more useful. X being determined by someone with some understanding of what is achievable 


If Phil was in agreement I also suggest that a sub forum would benefit discussion. Presently this topic can end up being discussed in completely random threads where even the thread title gives no indication of the discussed topic. In a sub forum dedicated to the loss of overnighting rights a member would be far more inclined to post the thread 'I am fighting an overnight parking restriction at 'so n so' carpark' and then ask for assistance in the form of emails directed at the authority in question.

I also suspect that in such a sub forum an activity such as a regional rural car park litter pick would be better received than in 'general posts'

Just some thoughts


----------



## Tookey

As you can probably attain from my posts being seen as custodians of overnight locations I believe is vital to any potential sucess.


----------



## Tookey

A 'motorhomers against litter' I suggest is a good place to start. I propose the idea that even Cornish and Pembrokeshire authorities would have been more hesitant about restrictions if for the last decade vehicle wildcamping had been associated with carpark custodian activities by the public

It also dissolves the 'free loaders' argument as 'paying your dues' does not have to be in a monetary form


----------



## Deleted member 56601

Tookey said:


> If Phil was in agreement I also suggest that a _*sub forum would benefit discussion.*_ Presently this topic can end up being discussed in completely random threads where even the thread title gives no indication of the discussed topic. In a sub forum dedicated to the loss of overnighting rights a member would be far more inclined to post the thread 'I am fighting an overnight parking restriction at 'so n so' carpark' and then ask for assistance in the form of emails directed at the authority in question.
> 
> I also suspect that in such a sub forum an activity such as a regional rural car park litter pick would be better received than in 'general posts'
> 
> Just some thoughts


A better approach might be to start a thread in the full member section and if it gets a good response, then ask Phil about starting a sub forum.


----------



## Biggarmac

Tookey said:


> A 'motorhomers against litter' I suggest is a good place to start. I propose the idea that even Cornish and Pembrokeshire authorities would have been more hesitant about restrictions if for the last decade vehicle wildcamping had been associated with carpark custodian activities by the public
> 
> It also dissolves the 'free loaders' argument as 'paying your dues' does not have to be in a monetary form


There is a facebook group called "Motorhomes and Campervans Against Litter" .  It is an active group with members doing litterpicks all over the UK. They have had local press coverage in the NE of England.  Instead of starting a new group why not join them?


----------



## Tookey

Biggarmac said:


> There is a facebook group called "Motorhomes and Campervans Against Litter" .  It is an active group with members doing litterpicks all over the UK. They have had local press coverage in the NE of England.  Instead of starting a new group why not join them?


I will look them up but just quickly do they have any association with protection of overnighting rights?


----------



## Biggarmac

Tookey said:


> I will look them up but just quickly do they have any association with protection of overnighting rights?


They are purely a litterpicking group.  Most members like to off-grid but the group are only trying to clean up places where they park.  The idea is to get a positive image for us.


----------



## molly 2

We have just had an invasion of travellers taking over local park and kids playground. Last count 60 vans and rising daily .it is a few yard from an housing estate, open field so would need more than  hight barriers  .no water no toilets .


----------



## Drover

Tookey said:


> I'm disappointed and suspect it's not legal, but I've just turned away OS surveyors from my door explaining that it's my dirty washing pile and not recent tectonic activity and I got an email from the WHO stating once they've finished with Wuhan


I'm the opposite and not really relevant to the topic but when the OS surveyor was outside our near finished house I asked if he wanted a cup of Chinese tea. Which he refused , they are connected to the Land Registry in case your interested....
Though I did want our place put on the map ( the land never has been) so we can get the 20% vat back and the RHI payments for the next 7 years...
Bloody hard work this house building ..

On another note  .. how long will the battery last in a hand grinder.


----------



## Drover

I see the term "travellers" and " motorhomers" entirely different.
But I'm old school and dont class a "traveller" and a "gypsy " the same.
I know times change but i think the council official has made a mistake... a big mistake 
As for the legality of it I have no idea.
Gypsies where I lived years ago would not be welcome at a travellers yard.
So do they class all as travellers......


----------



## Millie Master

Drover said:


> I see the term "travellers" and " motorhomers" entirely different.
> But I'm old school and dont class a "traveller" and a "gypsy " the same.
> I know times change but i think the council official has made a mistake... a big mistake
> As for the legality of it I have no idea.
> Gypsies where I lived years ago would not be welcome at a travellers yard.
> So do they class all as travellers......


Well said Drover, I always used to have a soft spot for true Romanie Gypsies whereas my thoughts for, about and against the Traveller community couldn't be lower, with these two opinions being shared by every single farmer and rural living person that I know.


----------



## mistericeman

Millie Master said:


> Well said Drover, I always used to have a soft spot for true Romanie Gypsies whereas my thoughts for, about and against the Traveller community couldn't be lower, with these two opinions being shared by every single farmer and rural living person that I know.


There are probably as many definitions of 'Traveller/Gypsy' as there are wild campers.... 
Some of the true Romany folks I met over Hull way (long dark hair and deep green eyed folks) 
Referred to the types that left carnage behind them as 'Diddecoy' 
In their terms fakes and not to be trusted 

Originally a Romani term of respect (dadika) for an older person, this has come to mean (in UK English) a Gypsy or traveller who is not of pure blood. The insult is therefore compounded, not only does this person have the negative qualities that prejudice has associated with travellers, but they are also of suspect descent, doubly damned

True Gypsy folks are some of THE most genuine folks I've had the pleasure to meet.... 

Sadly as with all walks of life there are good and bad that folks tend to lump in together.... 

Sound familiar at all?


----------



## Robmac

I know quite a few and often drink with them. Some are good some not so but I enjoy their company.


----------



## Bigkat007

REC said:


> Parked up near Blakeney in Norfolk and thought we would go to Wells for the day, have lunch and a bit of shopping. All car parks now have 2.2 m height barrier even the, manned, coach park! Spoke to chap on duty, thinking he would raise the bar as he was sitting there and a coach already parked. The answer was "no, we are onhigh alert for travellers"! I pointed out that this means Wells don't want any motorhomers spending their money there, he agreed and helped us tiurn round and leave! Absolutely fuming as this is just so short sighted. We have visited often up till now...why not have barriers and pay to leave parking? Will be writing to the council to express our disgust


This is such a sad, blinkered response. Eejits


----------



## DocMartin

maureenandtom said:


> _*the answer was "no, we are on high alert for travellers"*_
> 
> !It would be nice to have that official and in writing from the council.   I'd like to see their response when you get one.
> 
> https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/74/enacted
> 
> They become guilty of racial discrimination, even if they include us, as soon as they admit their target is the Traveller.  We are simply collateral damage in their Final Solution to the Traveller Problem.


They are targetting specific types of vehicles, not a race. If these motorhomers, travellers, Gypsies, turned up in cars they would be ignored and can park the same as other motorists.


----------



## Fisherman

DocMartin said:


> They are targetting specific types of vehicles, not a race. If these motorhomers, travellers, Gypsies, turned up in cars they would be ignored and can park the same as other motorists.


I actual fact they are targeting travellers by their own admission.
This decision was taken by the council in conjunction with the police because they had information that travellers may turn up.
They had serious problems with travellers in 2017.
As you can see from my attachment travellers are a separate race within the 2010 equality act.
And treating every traveller as a criminal and taking restrictive measures may well breech this act.

gypsies-and-travellers-race-discrimination


----------



## pilsleyavondale

REC said:


> Parked up near Blakeney in Norfolk and thought we would go to Wells for the day, have lunch and a bit of shopping. All car parks now have 2.2 m height barrier even the, manned, coach park! Spoke to chap on duty, thinking he would raise the bar as he was sitting there and a coach already parked. The answer was "no, we are onhigh alert for travellers"! I pointed out that this means Wells don't want any motorhomers spending their money there, he agreed and helped us tiurn round and leave! Absolutely fuming as this is just so short sighted. We have visited often up till now...why not have barriers and pay to leave parking? Will be writing to the council to express our disgust


----------



## DocMartin

Fisherman said:


> I actual fact they are targeting travellers by their own admission.
> This decision was taken by the council in conjunction with the police because they had information that travellers may turn up.
> They had serious problems with travellers in 2017.
> As you can see from my attachment travellers are a separate race within the 2010 equality act.
> And treating every traveller as a criminal and taking restrictive measures may well breech this act.
> 
> gypsies-and-travellers-race-discrimination


They are targetting me in my motorhome, I am a holidaymaker, I am an ordinary bloke, my vehicle happens to be a motorhome, I live in a house, therefore, despite what they say, they are discrimminating against types of vehicle.


----------



## Fisherman

DocMartin said:


> They are targetting me in my motorhome, I am a holidaymaker, I am an ordinary bloke, my vehicle happens to be a motorhome, I live in a house, therefore, despite what they say, they are discrimminating against types of vehicle.


We are collateral damage, apparently.
Yes I feel the same as you hence my many posts.
This is not a unique situation by any stretch of the imagination.
We suffer because of travellers who are the exact opposite of us, and other than their vehicles, have nothing to do with us.
But to determine that a whole race of people (Which travellers are classed as) are criminals, is clearly worth looking into.


----------



## peter palance

trevskoda said:


> So robs a bargee, id say a bar prop more like it.


dont let trev in he is a bit for-ward. ok.pj.


----------



## Robmac

peter palance said:


> dont let trev in he is a bit for-ward. ok.pj.



Long time no hear PJ, glad to see you back.


----------



## trevskoda

Did someone mention my name, my ears are burning, speak up or forever hold your peace, sandwiches excluded.


----------



## molly 2

Our  travellers  left after a few days  wot a mess they left  , they were wild camping on rout to Appleby  fair


----------



## trevskoda

molly 2 said:


> Our  travellers  left after a few days  wot a mess they left  , they were wild camping on rout to Appleby  fair


That explains why their places are shut up here and no one to be seen, please keep them thank you.


----------



## molly 2

trevskoda said:


> That explains why their places are shut up here and no one to be seen, please keep them thank you.


Sex and travel springs to mind ,


----------



## peter palance

trevskoda said:


> Did someone mention my name, my ears are burning, speak up or forever hold your peace, sandwiches excluded.


nice to see your still with us. hope your keeping well, ok.pj. xxxxx


----------



## trevskoda

peter palance said:


> nice to see your still with us. hope your keeping well, ok.pj. xxxxx


Yes breathing through a two way anti bug filter.


----------



## maureenandtom

Using the Freedom of Information Act I asked for details of how the decision to erect height barriers was taken.  You'll remember that the council spokesman said the decision was made by senior management and police.  The council did not provide this information.  To comply with the FoI procedure it is compelled to tell me that it either does or does not have the information;  if it does not wish to disclose it then it has a number of excuses it can use, cost for example, or other economic considerations.  And other reasons too.   The council didn't use any of the excuses it could have used;  it simply failed to disclose.   It did, however, give details of how the decision would be implemented.  Quite a different question.   I asked how they made it;  they answered how they would implement it.

I haven't complained.   Because, perhaps inadvertently, they gave me the information I was trying to obtain which is to find out who the specific target for the barriers is.   I got the information I wanted and it might be useful in the future that they failed to comply with the FoI Act.

In addition to the summary of how the barriers were to be activated  I also received two copy emails from the (Joint) Chief Executive at the time.   Both important, I attach one detailing who the target is.  The word target is used – interestingly.

An ethnic minority is the target.   Unlawful discrimination.   The barriers will be activated as soon as one or two vans with travellers are spotted.  How they will know it's not just us I don't know.  In the other email we are called _legitimate users_.    Interestingly the email also mentions a letter from the police which was later withdrawn.  I've asked for a copy of the letter and of whatever communication was used to withdraw it.    I expect to find they will both have been lost.   My suspicion is that the police became aware that the council was about to act illegally and withdrew their cooperation.

Up to now we had only the original email of a few weeks ago as proof;  now we have indisputable proof obtained under the FoI.

Like it or not, Governments must abide by the law.   I've complained to the council and the council will, I guess, now go through their complaints procedure stringing out a reply for as long as they feel able to delay it but their eventual reply will be very interesting.

The author of the emails = Nick Baker – later left his post with a £388,000 Golden Goodbye. Reasons not specified.


----------



## Fisherman

maureenandtom said:


> Using the Freedom of Information Act I asked for details of how the decision to erect height barriers was taken.  You'll remember that the council spokesman said the decision was made by senior management and police.  The council did not provide this information.  To comply with the FoI procedure it is compelled to tell me that it either does or does not have the information;  if it does not wish to disclose it then it has a number of excuses it can use, cost for example, or other economic considerations.  And other reasons too.   The council didn't use any of the excuses it could have used;  it simply failed to disclose.   It did, however, give details of how the decision would be implemented.  Quite a different question.   I asked how they made it;  they answered how they would implement it.
> 
> I haven't complained.   Because, perhaps inadvertently, they gave me the information I was trying to obtain which is to find out who the specific target for the barriers is.   I got the information I wanted and it might be useful in the future that they failed to comply with the FoI Act.
> 
> In addition to the summary of how the barriers were to be activated  I also received two copy emails from the (Joint) Chief Executive at the time.   Both important, I attach one detailing who the target is.  The word target is used – interestingly.
> 
> An ethnic minority is the target.   Unlawful discrimination.   The barriers will be activated as soon as one or two vans with travellers are spotted.  How they will know it's not just us I don't know.  In the other email we are called _legitimate users_.    Interestingly the email also mentions a letter from the police which was later withdrawn.  I've asked for a copy of the letter and of whatever communication was used to withdraw it.    I expect to find they will both have been lost.   My suspicion is that the police became aware that the council was about to act illegally and withdrew their cooperation.
> 
> Up to now we had only the original email of a few weeks ago as proof;  now we have indisputable proof obtained under the FoI.
> 
> Like it or not, Governments must abide by the law.   I've complained to the council and the council will, I guess, now go through their complaints procedure stringing out a reply for as long as they feel able to delay it but their eventual reply will be very interesting.
> 
> The author of the emails = Nick Baker – later left his post with a £388,000 Golden Goodbye. Reasons not specified.
> 
> View attachment 102304


Tom, the FOIA is a total farce. I have attempted to use it on other issues outwith this pastime, and it’s got more holes in it than a Tetley tea bag. There are so many avenues open to non reply.
As for looking like travellers, I have seen vans out there that could be taken this way wrongly. Cie up in Fraserburgh who runs the stop over was thought of as such when they were simply using an unconventional van.
Anyway Tom thanks again.


----------



## Rolyan57

Personally I would still push them to follow the FOI process. But that’s just me. 

It was clear from the start that they were targeting travellers, who had caused extensive disruption, threatening behaviour, violence, theft, damage, etc. Just as they have done on so many other occasions.  So if we somehow got this overturned (we won’t) and travellers returned, resulting in the major problems to the local community again, and the Council tells locals that we had to do it because of pressure from motorhomers, is that a win?

Just so it’s clear, I support restricted access on specific occasions which is intelligence led. I don’t support a 24/7/52 blanket ban on tall vehicles.


----------



## Val54

Rolyan57 said:


> Personally I would still push them to follow the FOI process. But that’s just me.
> 
> It was clear from the start that they were targeting travellers, who had caused extensive disruption, threatening behaviour, violence, theft, damage, etc. Just as they have done on so many other occasions.  So if we somehow got this overturned (we won’t) and travellers returned, resulting in the major problems to the local community again, and the Council tells locals that we had to do it because of pressure from motorhomers, is that a win?
> 
> Just so it’s clear, I support restricted access on specific occasions which is intelligence led. I don’t support a 24/7/52 blanket ban on tall vehicles.


Tom’s evidence is very persuasive that the Council have been discriminatory and as result have also discriminated against legitimate users of Council facilities. I’m optimistic that there is a case to answer, although I accept that it won’t be through the Council’s own complaints procedure. The local government ombudsman will be the next step.


----------



## Fisherman

Rolyan57 said:


> Personally I would still push them to follow the FOI process. But that’s just me.
> 
> It was clear from the start that they were targeting travellers, who had caused extensive disruption, threatening behaviour, violence, theft, damage, etc. Just as they have done on so many other occasions.  So if we somehow got this overturned (we won’t) and travellers returned, resulting in the major problems to the local community again, and the Council tells locals that we had to do it because of pressure from motorhomers, is that a win?
> 
> Just so it’s clear, I support restricted access on specific occasions which is intelligence led. I don’t support a 24/7/52 blanket ban on tall vehicles.


I think Tom may be looking at the big picture here.
This case has all the hallmarks of what could be an illegal act.
What I don’t understand is if the council were warned that troublemakers were heading their way, then why were the police not involved at their previous location. Tom has highlighted many times in the past cases were councils have supported parking measures with fictitious facts about our behaviour, based on non corroborated comments from one complainant, when the councils have claimed several exist. We are constantly reminded that we must abide by the law, so it’s important that our local politicians do likewise.


----------



## Rolyan57

I understand and agree with many of the comments above. But I hope our complaints about alleged discrimination against an ethnic minority are based on genuine morals and principles and concern for them, rather than being a means to an end for our personal gain. 

I fear that if we managed to get travellers allowed back into the local car parks, we might be less welcome as a result than we are now.


----------



## Val54

Rolyan57 said:


> I understand and agree with many of the comments above. But I hope our complaints about alleged discrimination against an ethnic minority are based on genuine morals and principles and concern for them, rather than being a means to an end for our personal gain.
> 
> I fear that if we managed to get travellers allowed back into the local car parks, we might be less welcome as a result than we are now.


It’s not a question of allowing travellers back into public car parks. Council’s have existing powers to deal with illegal incursions which some choose not to use. So they resort to height barriers.


----------



## Rolyan57

Val54 said:


> It’s not a question of allowing travellers back into public car parks. Council’s have existing powers to deal with illegal incursions which some choose not to use. So they resort to height barriers.


I suspect that the Council is trying to stop them arriving in the first place, rather than deal with them with existing legislation after they have arrived, encamped, and started their campaign of violence, theft, intimidation, mess, waste and social upheaval.

Hence why I support targeted campaigns inc height barriers based on intel (which I understood the original issue to be) rather than blanket 24/7/52 bans.


----------



## Val54

Rolyan57 said:


> I suspect that the Council is trying to stop them arriving in the first place, rather than deal with them with existing legislation after they have arrived, encamped, and started their campaign of violence, theft, intimidation, mess, waste and social upheaval.
> 
> Hence why I support targeted campaigns (inc height barriers) based on intel, rather than blanket 24/7/52 bans. Which I understood the original issue to be.


If the Council were trying to be pro-active they (or the private sector) would have provided the requisite number of permanent and transit pitches for travellers. Had they done so, they could have liaised with the police to direct travellers to any available approved pitches or have them escorted out of the borough. The legislation already exists.


----------



## Rolyan57

Correct, legislation does already exist. But a) not everyone wants to camp in dedicated areas (that sounds familiar) and b) we’re not talking about a Church group turning up for choir practice.

But we all have different opinions on how best to handle this. My main comment to those pushing the ethnic minority issue is be careful what you wish for.


----------



## Val54

Rolyan57 said:


> Correct, legislation does already exist. But a) not everyone wants to camp in dedicated areas (that sounds familiar) and b) we’re not talking about a Church group turning up for choir practice.
> 
> But we all have different opinions on how best to handle this. My main comment to those pushing the ethnic minority issue is be careful what you wish for.


No pain no gain springs to mind if there is ever to be a solution to the travellers issues and our own.


----------



## maingate

What the Travellers do is a Civil matter, so nothing to do with the Police. If they interfered with an ethnic group moving from point A to point B (before any kind of offence, civil or criminal has been committed) then they are just as guilty of illegal acts as the Council is. No wonder they pulled out.


----------



## mistericeman

maingate said:


> What the Travellers do is a Civil matter, so nothing to do with the Police. If they interfered with an ethnic group moving from point A to point B (before any kind of offence, civil or criminal has been committed) then they are just as guilty of illegal acts as the Council is. No wonder they pulled out.


Though technically speaking (from memory) 
IF someone is to park up somewhere where it interferes with a business (retail carpark etc) or carrying out business it elevates the offence to Criminal trespass and this liable to police intervention and possible prosecution.


----------



## Val54

maingate said:


> What the Travellers do is a Civil matter, so nothing to do with the Police. If they interfered with an ethnic group moving from point A to point B (before any kind of offence, civil or criminal has been committed) then they are just as guilty of illegal acts as the Council is. No wonder they pulled out.


That is not necessarily the case, where adequate traveller facilities exist within any borough (permanent and transit pitches) then the Police can use Section 62A of the Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994 without any other offence being committed by directing the travellers to any available pitches or escorting them out of the borough if they refuse to move. Not many local authorities can call on the Police to use that power as they haven't made sufficient provision and then the Human Rights Act kicks in.  Most travellers know which boroughs where they need to be careful.


----------



## maureenandtom

maingate said:


> What the Travellers do is a Civil matter, so nothing to do with the Police. If they interfered with an ethnic group moving from point A to point B (before any kind of offence, civil or criminal has been committed) then they are just as guilty of illegal acts as the Council is. No wonder they pulled out.




I think that is exactly right.     There was a BBC report https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-40997135 quoting the Deputy Chief Constable Nick Dean as saying:

_"But to put the blame completely on the travelling community as a whole, I think is totally disproportionate."_

Backing away from collaberating in what I believe is illegal action by the council.   If I don't get the letter from the council then I might try to get it from the police.

From another report https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ival-chaos-why-changing-cromer-faced-lockdown - I think that weekend was something lie a carnival weekend and Cromer and North Norfolk coast had a quarter of a million visitors of which the number of motorhomes was negligible - I think something like 25 vans were counted in the District Council Area and itr's a pretty big area.


----------



## peter palance

molly 2 said:


> Sex and travel springs to mind ,


what about six and seven. end of bed-dragguld. ha ha ha.sounds good to me.ok.pj. hop it


----------



## Harrytherid

Having a urinary problem and being of an age when I need a good sleep in the middle of the day I am forced to use my motorhome for trips longer than three quarters of an hour. At those times it is my only form of transport therefore any organisation discriminating against motorhomes is discriminating against me in the meaning of the act (age, sex, or disability) and if I find I am discriminated against in those circumstances I shall accuse them of disability discrimination and take the details of any officials and of the relevant authority. Whether I shall actually do anything about it will depend on various factors but it might just give them pause for thought. Who does one report disability discrimination to, does anyone know?

The response to Ruth (REC) is illuminating. My response to that is what are the police doing? Were the demands being made with menaces? It is about time the travellers sorted themselves out and weeded out the rougher element and stopped leaving a mess.

I travel with a copy of my council tax bill proving that I am a bona-fide home owner with a motorhome, not a traveller.

Harry


----------



## maureenandtom

Harry, I think you'd have to complain in the first instance to the people who are discriminating against you.   In this thread a local authority.   You'd have to give the organisation an opportunity to put their discrimination right.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/l...ity/what-counts-as-disability-discrimination/ give good advice.  In particular, this paragraph:




For height barriers then what they have done is the opposite.   Far from making a reasonable adjustment they have made a mal-adjustment.   What was accessible they have made inaccessible.

I don't know of anyone who has succeeeded in using disability as an argument against height barriers, but then, I don't know of anyone who has tried.

It would help your case if you could show evidence that a high vehicle is essential to your life-style and if you have documents showing a disability is alleviated by a van type vehicle then that would help too.  Urinary disorder could be a good one.  Certificate of a prostate problem or something.   I'd try it first in your own council area if you have car parks with height barriers.

There's a bit of a snag though.   The council might well say that they do cater for the disabled and might quote that all their car parks have spaces reserved for the disabled so you'd have to provide proof that a motorhome is essential to you and you are disadvantaged because this need means that you can't get to the disabled space in your essential vehicle.   Maybe leading you into danger because you'd have to use your blue badge to park in what might be unsuitable places.

There's another snag.   You have to have an _interest_.   That means that to complain to North Norfolk District Council you'd have to live there or near there of be a frequent visitor.   If all else fails then you can always try the _But For_ …... argument.  For example,  _But for_ your height barriers I'd be a more frequent visitor.  If you end up going to the Ombudsman – the logical conclusion - then I don't know if the But For argument would satisfy them.    My instinct is that it would.

Best of Luck.


----------



## Deleted member 76055

If you don't mind walking, there are parking spaces along roads away from the sea front.
Cannot tell you which roads but seek and you shall find.  
Round the back by the school springs to mind.
Be carefull though as some are narrow.


----------



## Harrytherid

Thanks maureenandtom.  The link lead to a document I found very enlightening especially the Access to goods, facilities and services bit, a toilet is a facility and if they deny me access to my own toilet by not allowing me to park my toilet in their car park then..................too complicated.  I remember getting off a parking ticket once by making the point that the time was not on the receipt portion of the ticket so I was denied my reminder.  We can do what we want so long as it is not specifically disallowed by law but they a can only do what is specifically permitted by law and long may that situation last.  Regards,  Harry


----------



## gasgas

The trouble with councils having legal powers is that travellers know the law better than the Police or the Councils. Travellers know exactly how to go about extending their stay by nine months, all the while producing tens of thousands of pounds of damage. Travellers have plenty of funds to go to court (but none of course for road tax, insurance or yellow diesel or legal tyres). I once fitted an electronic item in a showman's small caravan. I had to run wires from the front to the back, inside the under-bed lockers. EVERY under-bed locker was full of sacks stuffed with cash. Notes I mean, not coins.


----------



## Tookey

gasgas said:


> The trouble with councils having legal powers is that travellers know the law better than the Police or the Councils. Travellers know exactly how to go about extending their stay by nine months, all the while producing tens of thousands of pounds of damage. Travellers have plenty of funds to go to court (but none of course for road tax, insurance or yellow diesel or legal tyres). I once fitted an electronic item in a showman's small caravan. I had to run wires from the front to the back, inside the under-bed lockers. EVERY under-bed locker was full of sacks stuffed with cash. Notes I mean, not coins.


......but did your cash in hand payment go on your books?


----------



## mistericeman

gasgas said:


> The trouble with councils having legal powers is that travellers know the law better than the Police or the Councils. Travellers know exactly how to go about extending their stay by nine months, all the while producing tens of thousands of pounds of damage. Travellers have plenty of funds to go to court (but none of course for road tax, insurance or yellow diesel or legal tyres). I once fitted an electronic item in a showman's small caravan. I had to run wires from the front to the back, inside the under-bed lockers. EVERY under-bed locker was full of sacks stuffed with cash. Notes I mean, not coins.


I'd maybe add a sprinkling of 'Some' throughout that statement... 

Just like it's 'SOME' motorhomers Park inconsiderately and 'SOME' leave a mess etc etc


----------



## maureenandtom

I've received a response from North Norfolk District Council.   Attached.  The highlighting is mine where I've tried to get my thoughts into order.

The council doesn't agree that their height barriers are discriminatory though the council admits they were erected to manage Gypsy and Traveller visits.    For 350 days of the year there is unrestricted access to their car parks though camping and sleeping is not permitted.   Campra has been in touch to try for permitted overnight sleeping but the council hasn't agreed.   I don't see how the council can enforce no overnght sleeping or camping but I've not yet replied – and my reply might be influenced by any response here.

Something important comes out of this and might demonstrate the council's lack of confidence in its assertion of non-discrimination.  It now says, and says it twice, that barriers are closed at the request of police.   Not their decision to close, they seem to be saying.


----------



## peter palance

trevskoda said:


> Did someone mention my name, my ears are burning, speak up or forever hold your peace, sandwiches excluded.


one bite or two. please stop chop- sin. hope your ok.  ok.pj.


----------



## Rolyan57

maureenandtom said:


> I've received a response from North Norfolk District Council.   Attached.  The highlighting is mine where I've tried to get my thoughts into order.
> 
> The council doesn't agree that their height barriers are discriminatory though the council admits they were erected to manage Gypsy and Traveller visits.    For 350 days of the year there is unrestricted access to their car parks though camping and sleeping is not permitted.   Campra has been in touch to try for permitted overnight sleeping but the council hasn't agreed.   I don't see how the council can enforce no overnght sleeping or camping but I've not yet replied – and my reply might be influenced by any response here.
> 
> Something important comes out of this and might demonstrate the council's lack of confidence in its assertion of non-discrimination.  It now says, and says it twice, that barriers are closed at the request of police.   Not their decision to close, they seem to be saying.


I can’t open or read the document on my phone I’m afraid, so I can’t comment on it. 

However, I did speak to a solicitor (unofficially) who said that she didn’t believe it was discriminatory and doubted it would see the time of day in a court case.

Nothing about moral rights or wrongs, or the legality or otherwise of signs, just a comment on the argument of discrimination.


----------



## Fisherman

Rolyan57 said:


> I can’t open or read the document on my phone I’m afraid, so I can’t comment on it.


Complaint of alleged contravention by North Norfolk District Council of Race Relations Act 1968
I refer to your letter dated 27th September 2021 concerning the above and note the contents therein.
The substantive issue of your complaint appears to be the District Council’s decision, following a large unauthorised encampment and anti-social behaviour by a group of Gypsies and Travellers visiting Cromer in August 2017; to install height barriers at some of its coastal car parks, which can be operated or closed at the request of police colleagues, to minimise future unauthorised encampments in the future; and whether such action is a constitutes discrimination against a defined group of people.
I advise that it isn’t clear from your complaint as to whether you are raising this issue in a personal capacity, having tried to access the Council’s car parks; are representing a group of people (members of the Gypsy and Traveller community) who believe they have suffered or experienced discrimination through the Council’s actions or policies; or otherwise have seen reporting on a local issue through the national media. I believe however that it would be helpful for the Council to understand your interest in this matter, such that an appropriate response can be provided to you. In the absence of such understanding I would comment in respect of the issues you have raised as follows:-
North Norfolk District Council does not believe that the provision of height restriction barriers on a small number of its public car parks to prevent unauthorised occupation by Gypsies and Travellers represents discrimination or contravention of the Race Relations Act 1968 as is suggested in your complaint.
The District Council provides public car parks in its market and coastal towns for the purposes of supporting the local economy – ie vibrant town centres as centres of employment shopping, business and personal services and leisure visits; and meeting the needs of tourist visitors visiting local beaches, promenade areas and related attractions, eating places etc. The car parks provided by the authority, and the bye-laws which apply to such assets, are detailed in the North Norfolk Car Park Order 2012 (as amended). The bye-laws do permit overnight parking of vehicles for use by local residents who do not have private parking or by people staying in local guest houses or self-catering accommodation without private parking, but do not allow any overnight sleeping or camping in vehicles.

Gypsies and Travellers have visited North Norfolk over many years for seasonal work, taking holidays or pilgrimage to the shrines at Walsingham. Whilst the majority of these visits were without issue, historically some visits involved unauthorised encampments being established on District Council car parks, playing fields, common land and on highway verges, which often generated community tensions.
In response to these events and to comply with legislation contained within the 2004 Housing Act, in 2007 /2008 North Norfolk District Council undertook a process of extensive community engagement on proposals to provide facilities for Gypsies and Travellers visiting North Norfolk. Two dedicated Temporary Stopping Place facilities, at Cromer and Fakenham, were provided with the support of Government funding. Each of these facilities, which are managed by the District Council, has 10 surfaced pitches served by an internal site roadway and where temporary toilet and waste facilities can be provided when the sites are occupied, thereby providing a safe environment for the travelling community, reflective of the seasonal and short- term nature of visits to North Norfolk. Since the provision of these facilities in 2010/11, community tensions around visits to North Norfolk by the travelling community have been significantly reduced such that their provision and operation is widely recognised as a success in community cohesion terms.
The only exception to this strategy was an event in August 2017 when a group of some 23 Gypsy and Traveller caravans occupied the Runton Road Car Park in Cromer and caused significant issues of anti-social behaviour in the town. The scale of this event was extensively reported in local and national media and resulted in the Norfolk Constabulary and Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk attending a high profile public meeting in the town and undertaking a review of the Constabulary’s response to the incident. The “learning” from this incident was for there to be increased local partnership working in managing visits of Gypsies and Travellers to North Norfolk, including “target-hardening” of some public car parks to restrict unauthorised use / occupation based on local intelligence, such that legitimate and authorised use of the car parks could be protected in support of the wider local economy. Such a position was supported through the Council’s previous positive provision of Stopping Place facilities for Gypsies and Travellers visiting the District – such that the decision to install height barriers at some coastal public car parks, which could be “closed” based on intelligence related to the movement of Gypsy and Travellers within Norfolk, was seen as an appropriate and proportionate response to managing an issue which in the height of the summer season could impact upon the local economy, individual businesses and community events.
Height restriction barriers were therefore installed on five coastal or resort car parks provided by the District Council – these being at Runton Road; Cadogan Road and The Meadow in Cromer; Station Approach, Sheringham and Stearmans Yard, Wells-next-the-Sea. Two other car parks operated by the District Council also have fixed height barriers for operational or reasons specified in the Council’s lease of land so as to provide a car park – these are at East Runton (restricting access to approximately half of the car park (grassed area) and a new car park provided in 2020 at Bacton.
With regards the five car parks which have height restriction barriers which can be “closed” at the request of the police based on intelligence about the movement of Gypsies and Travellers within Norfolk, restricted access to these car parks is limited to just a few days of the year – ie there is unrestricted access for most of the time – ie an average of 350 days per year.

With the COVID pandemic over the past two summer seasons, the North Norfolk District has seen very large numbers of staycation visitors, an increasing number of whom have visited in motorhomes and campervans. The Council has received representations from the owners of such vehicles and the Campaign for Real Aires that overnight parking / sleeping should be permitted on its car parks; however the Council does not believe this is appropriate for a number of reasons. These include the fact that the district has a very large number of authorised camping sites – including over 100 certified locations with just five pitches to large commercial sites with leisure facilities, bars and restaurants – therefore catering for a very diverse range of preferences which the Council believes it is unfair to undermine given the investment made in facilities by these businesses; issues of amenity for local residents adjoining public car parks and the costs involved to Council Tax payers in providing additional facilities for motorhome owners such as the provision of water and waste facilities. The District Council has not therefore agreed to revise its Car Park Order or bye-laws to permit overnight camping or sleeping on any of its public car parks by any groups of people or individuals – ie the regulations within the bye-laws apply equally and cannot therefore be seen as discriminating or disadvantaging any group or community, in the way you have suggested.
In terms of the wider accessibility of its public car parks, North Norfolk District Council operates some 25 public car parks – the majority of which serve town centres and are surfaced and with marked spaces; whilst a number of others, all of which are in coastal locations are grassed areas where parking is more informal. All are surface car parks – ie none are underground or multi-storey. This means that in general there are no height restrictions limiting access to motorhomes or vehicles with roof-racks or roof-boxes and indeed five car parks also accommodate coach parking and two accommodate markets on some days of the week, such that they are accessible by HGVs. However, what we have seen this summer with large numbers of motorhome visitors is that some town centre car park layouts with marked bays present some difficulties in terms of turning space for larger or long vehicles such that we did issue advice as to car parks which could more easily accommodate parking of motorhomes – ie on to car parks where parking was more informal with more space for parking and turning. All of the District Council’s surfaced and marked car parks have dedicated accessible parking for Blue Badge holders with wider spaces to allow access by wheelchairs etc, in line with legislative requirements. The majority of the Council’s car parks also have public toilets on or in close proximity to the car parks, albeit they are not open 24/7 due to issues experienced with anti-social behaviour. Toilets provided at the Temporary Stopping Places are for the exclusive use of occupiers of these facilities.
I note that in making your complaint to the District Council you state that you believe the Council’s use of height barriers in the management of its car parks is discriminatory. The District Council does not agree with this position for the reasons outlined above and would further comment that many car parks operated by local authorities and private sector operators do not allow unrestricted or open access to all vehicle users – many underground, multi- storey or shopping centre car parks cannot accommodate motorhomes or other high or indeed long vehicles, many restrict access by vehicles towing trailers etc
.I hope the above addresses the concerns raised in your correspondence, but please do come back to me if you wish to discuss further.


----------



## Rolyan57

That seems to be a reasonable and balanced response, and does help put things into perspective.

I never thought it was discriminatory, which has subsequently been backed up by a solicitor, albeit unofficially. The response does make clear that the height restrictions are only in place for a few days of the year. 

I honestly believe that the vast majority of residents will be applauding this balanced, legal and proactive approach to reducing the massive anti social behaviour caused by these travellers.


----------



## Fisherman

Rolyan57 said:


> That seems to be a reasonable and balanced response, and does help put things into perspective.
> 
> I never thought it was discriminatory, which has subsequently been backed up by a solicitor, albeit unofficially. The response does make clear that the height restrictions are only in place for a few days of the year.
> 
> I honestly believe that the vast majority of residents will be applauding this balanced, legal and proactive approach to reducing the massive anti social behaviour caused by these travellers.


Travellers are classed as a separate race under the race discrimination act.
And all travellers are not anti social, to make that assumption is discriminatory.

If a group of people from any other race had barriers placed due to their imminent arrival, that would be deemed racial discrimination.

I fail to see how when travellers are a separate race, that to assume that all travellers are anti social would not be deemed discriminatory.

Also what the vast majority of local residents think has no legal bearing whatsoever. But it may prove politically beneficial to a local councillor seeking re-election.

But I wish to thank Tom for all his efforts, no matter the outcome.


----------



## Rolyan57

Yes, I also thank Tom for his efforts. 

Just because I agree with targeted action a few days a year based on intelligence, doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the efforts of others.

The opinions of locals should matter to us, although why you think you need to point out that it has no legal bearing is beyond me. No one is suggesting that. But a little empathy goes a long way.  Because perceptions are vital and frankly, to outsiders, this discussion would come  across as ‘motorhomers’ being extremely selfish and unreasonable. 

But each to his own.


----------



## Fisherman

Rolyan57 said:


> Yes, I also thank Tom for his efforts.
> 
> Just because I agree with targeted action a few days a year based on intelligence, doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the efforts of others.
> 
> The opinions of locals should matter to us, although why you think you need to point out that it has no legal bearing is beyond me. No one is suggesting that. But a little empathy goes a long way.  Because perceptions are vital and frankly, to outsiders, this discussion would come  across as ‘motorhomers’ being extremely selfish and unreasonable.
> 
> But each to his own.


I never stated that locals opinions don’t matter.
But as your replies were based on legalities backed up by an “unofficial” lawyer  I found that comment out of context.
The point remains treating any race as one is discrimination, and acting differently based on their race is discriminatorry.


----------



## Rolyan57

Fisherman said:


> I never stated that locals opinions don’t matter.
> But as your replies were based on legalities backed up by an “unofficial”, I found that comment out of context.


I know you didn’t. But you said that what locals think has no legal bearing. I just thought that was a strange point to make as no ever suggested it did. However, it does have a massive impact on how they will react to us. 

At the end of the day we will all see this situation differently. I don’t think there’s been discrimination and I fully understand why they want to use barriers on a few occasions a year when police information suggests a possible repeat of previous major issues.  If I can support the locals in that by finding alternative parking for those few days, I’m happy to do so. 

Others will feel differently and I understand that.


----------



## Fisherman

Rolyan57 said:


> I know you didn’t. But you said that what locals think has no legal bearing. I just thought that was a strange point to make as no ever suggested it did. However, it does have a massive impact on how they will react to us.
> 
> At the end of the day we will all see this situation differently. I don’t think there’s been discrimination and I fully understand why they want to use barriers on a few occasions a year when police information suggests a possible repeat of previous major issues.  If I can support the locals in that by finding alternative parking for those few days, I’m happy to do so.
> 
> Others will feel differently and I understand that.


Local residents plaudits were mentioned by you initially.
Not by myself.
Their inclusion followed a legal argument put forward by yourself.
I merely pointed out that what they think has no legal bearing.
If I was a decent law abiding traveller reading what has been posted, I would feel discriminated against. I think it’s important that this action is challenged, and not because we were not able to park, thats of little importance in this instance. But because I think it could be discriminatory.


----------



## Rolyan57

Fisherman said:


> Local residents plaudits were mentioned by you initially.
> Not by myself.
> There inclusion followed a legal argument put forward by yourself.
> I merely pointed out that what they think has no legal bearing.
> If I was a decent law abiding traveller reading what has been posted, I would feel discriminated against. I think it’s important that this action is challenged, and not because we were not able to park, thats of little importance in this instance. But because I think it could be discriminatory.


We all agree that what the locals think has no legal bearing. That was never in doubt and wasn’t ever put forward as an argument by anyone. So hopefully that’s covered now.

Those who believe that the targeted restriction is discriminatory, on a moral and principled basis, could seek formal legal advice and then mount a challenge in court. 

Those who are concerned purely with the effect on our parking can decide whether or not a few days inconvenience is worth it to support a community wanting to avoid a repeat of the major problems they have had in the past, and react accordingly.


----------



## maureenandtom

I had no idea that some could not read pdf files.   Nevertheless, it might be useful if I publish my complaint to the council - so here it is attached.  I hope that all will download a pdf reader.  All my devices, PC, Tablet, Phone have a pdf reader;  difficult to see how we can manage without one.

I too, wonder if it's worth making the council adhere to the law 100% when it now claims that it does so 99 point something % of the time.   I also wonder that the council now says that the barriers are closed on request by the police rather than with a council decision.   Why would the council backpedal on that?   Their previous stance was that the council would close the barriers as soon as they became aware of one or two vans containing Travellers.    It's there in the emails I;'ve attached in the complaint.  If one or two motorhomes turn up then who is to say that they are not Travellers.   The council will not close the barriers for genuine users - it has used that divisive term.  Travellers, they say,  are not genuine users.  They only close the barriers when they believe there are one or two vans with Travellers.

On the plus side, Campra has been involved and this little complaint of mine might make the council a  little more receptive to Campra.    And .... the council has provided two temporary stopping places for Travellers each with ten pitches but which are not usually used.   Campra could suggest that they could be used by us.  If Campra doesn't, then I might but I think that approach would be better from someone other than me

Their response also tells us why they forbid overnight camping and sleeping in their car parks.    It should now be possible to begin a discussion with the council about that.  I think this https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1485426/caravan-facilities-warning-tourism-norfolk-council might have been the Campra approach but I don't know if it is.   Campa is free to use the council reply to me in any way useful to them.

I'm not sure what to do next.  If the decision is taken by the police then the council is not discriminatory - the police are.  I'd willinbgly make a bet that if I make the same complaint to the police then the police response will be to deny they ever discriminate and decision of closure is always taken by the council.


----------



## trevskoda

gasgas said:


> The trouble with councils having legal powers is that travellers know the law better than the Police or the Councils. Travellers know exactly how to go about extending their stay by nine months, all the while producing tens of thousands of pounds of damage. Travellers have plenty of funds to go to court (but none of course for road tax, insurance or yellow diesel or legal tyres). I once fitted an electronic item in a showman's small caravan. I had to run wires from the front to the back, inside the under-bed lockers. EVERY under-bed locker was full of sacks stuffed with cash. Notes I mean, not coins.


Are you sure that was not phils van.


----------



## trevskoda

maureenandtom said:


> I had no idea that some could not read pdf files.   Nevertheless, it might be useful if I publish my complaint to the council - so here it is attached.  I hope that all will download a pdf reader.  All my devices, PC, Tablet, Phone have a pdf reader;  difficult to see how we can manage without one.
> 
> I too, wonder if it's worth making the council adhere to the law 100% when it now claims that it does so 99 point something % of the time.   I also wonder that the council now says that the barriers are closed on request by the police rather than with a council decision.   Why would the council backpedal on that?   Their previous stance was that the council would close the barriers as soon as they became aware of one or two vans containing Travellers.    It's there in the emails I;'ve attached in the complaint.  If one or two motorhomes turn up then who is to say that they are not Travellers.   The council will not close the barriers for genuine users - it has used that divisive term.  Travellers, they say,  are not genuine users.  They only close the barriers when they believe there are one or two vans with Travellers.
> 
> On the plus side, Campra has been involved and this little complaint of mine might make the council a  little more receptive to Campra.    And .... the council has provided two temporary stopping places for Travellers each with ten pitches but which are not usually used.   Campra could suggest that they could be used by us.  If Campra doesn't, then I might but I think that approach would be better from someone other than me
> 
> Their response also tells us why they forbid overnight camping and sleeping in their car parks.    It should now be possible to begin a discussion with the council about that.  I think this https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1485426/caravan-facilities-warning-tourism-norfolk-council might have been the Campra approach but I don't know if it is.   Campa is free to use the council reply to me in any way useful to them.
> 
> I'm not sure what to do next.  If the decision is taken by the police then the council is not discriminatory - the police are.  I'd willinbgly make a bet that if I make the same complaint to the police then the police response will be to deny they ever discriminate and decision of closure is always taken by the council.


ODF is the common reader which works on all platforms.


----------



## Val54

I think we need to take a step back and review the new information that has emerged.
The Council deserve plaudits for having provided 2 traveller transit sites in 2010. They have met their responsibilities to an ethnic minority when many more Councils have failed to do so.
Moving forward to the events of 2017, the failings that led to the problems in the town are squarely with the police. Because of the existence of the transit sites, they had the powers to immediately require that the travellers moved to the those sites. If they refused or was no room, then the police should have escorted them out of the council's area.
What appears to have happened since is that there is better co-ordination between the council and police, the height barriers being one part of the perceived solution. I can accept that that is a legitimate response given the existence of the transit sites and the stated intention that the barriers are only closed when an incursion is imminent, in the Council's view, a handful of days a year. Whether that is the reality is a different issue.
So if for the majority of time, the barriers are open, nobody is being discriminated against, the travellers have designated stopping pitches, the general public can use the car park.
That leaves overnight sleeping etc. Well as the by-law prevents any overnighting, how can we as motorhomers, argue discrimination. 
What Tom quite rightly identified as a potential breach by the Council has morphed into a lack of appropriate action by the police in 2017 and potentially mis-management of the height barriers by the Council.


----------



## alcam

gasgas said:


> The trouble with councils having legal powers is that travellers know the law better than the Police or the Councils. Travellers know exactly how to go about extending their stay by nine months, all the while producing tens of thousands of pounds of damage. Travellers have plenty of funds to go to court (but none of course for road tax, insurance or yellow diesel or legal tyres). I once fitted an electronic item in a showman's small caravan. I had to run wires from the front to the back, inside the under-bed lockers. EVERY under-bed locker was full of sacks stuffed with cash. Notes I mean, not coins.


Always understood showmen didn't get on with travellers ? Think channa posted that


----------



## Fisherman

To my possibly wrong way of thinking there are two issues here.
The first that we as members of the public were denied access to the car park.
The second that preemptive measures were taken against members of the public on the basis of their race.

Heres the definition of racial discrimination.

*Racial discrimination is any discrimination against any individual on the basis of their skin color, or racialor ethnic origin. Individuals can discriminate by refusing to do business with, socialize with, or share resources with people of a certain group. Governments can discriminate in a de facto fashion or explicitly in law, for example ...*

Now informing people that they must use certain facilities due to their race is no different from telling them where to sit on a train, or that they must use these toilet facilities.


----------



## Val54

alcam said:


> Always understood showmen didn't get on with travellers ? Think channa posted that


They don't and a lot of the different traveller groups don't mix either .........


----------



## Val54

Fisherman said:


> To my possibly wrong way of thinking there are two issues here.
> The first that we as members of the public were denied access to the car park.
> The second that preemptive measures were taken against members of the public on the basis of their race.
> 
> Heres the definition of racial discrimination.
> 
> *Racial discrimination is any discrimination against any individual on the basis of their skin color, or racialor ethnic origin. Individuals can discriminate by refusing to do business with, socialize with, or share resources with people of a certain group. Governments can discriminate in a de facto fashion or explicitly in law, for example ...*
> 
> Now informing people that they must use certain facilities due to their race is no different from telling them where to sit on a train, or that they must use these toilet facilities.


Whether you agree with it or not, that is the current state of the various bits of legislation.


----------



## Harrytherid

I do not object to no camping signs but no sleeping is another matter.  Camping should be done on Camp sites not in car parks but sleeping is another matter. The removal of beach furniture is fine for use on a beach but not on a car park.  The dumping of any waste in any receptacle not intended for that purpose is not to be allowed and the occupation of any one space for more than 48 hours ought not to be allowed also.  I too do not see how they can enforce a sleeping ban.  I have encountered car parks with a 24 hour fee which if paid does not entitle one to sleep in the vehicle.  If I wish to have a post lunch nap, I will do so and similarly I will engage in overnight sleeping when legally parked.  How can they justify such a ban which I am pretty sure is unenforceable any way.  If you get a ticket just dont pay it.  Make them take you to court if they so wish, they probably won't.  Height barrier are another matter;  they ARE discriminatory as I explained in my previous post so complaints ought to be made and I shall a make it my business to do so whenever I am baulked by one.  The entry in the council letter   The Council has received representations from the owners of such vehicles and the Campaign for Real Aires that overnight parking / sleeping should be permitted on its car parks; however the Council does not believe this is appropriate for a number of reasons. These include the fact that the district has a very large number of authorised camping sites – including over 100 certified locations with just five pitches to large commercial sites with leisure facilities, bars and restaurants – therefore catering for a very diverse range of preferences which the Council believes it is unfair to undermine given the investment made in facilities by these businesses; issues of amenity for local residents adjoining public car parks and the costs involved to Council Tax payers in providing additional facilities for motorhome owners such as the provision of water and waste facilities. irritated me
Many of us just do not want any of these facilities that the big sites offer and charge much for.  CLs, even, have become much too dear with unwanted facilities which is partly why we park off grid and have equipped ourselves with the ability to store our waste for protracted periods until we find a suitable place to dispose of them.


----------



## Fisherman

Val54 said:


> Whether you agree with it or not, that is the current state of the various bits of legislation


Well possibly that legislation is wrong, discriminatory and should be questioned.


----------



## Fisherman

Harrytherid said:


> I do not object to no camping signs but no sleeping is another matter.  Camping should be done on Camp sites not in car parks but sleeping is another matter. The removal of beach furniture is fine for use on a beach but not on a car park.  The dumping of any waste in any receptacle not intended for that purpose is not to be allowed and the occupation of any one space for more than 48 hours ought not to be allowed also.  I too do not see how they can enforce a sleeping ban.  I have encountered car parks with a 24 hour fee which if paid does not entitle one to sleep in the vehicle.  If I wish to have a post lunch nap, I will do so and similarly I will engage in overnight sleeping when legally parked.  How can they justify such a ban which I am pretty sure is unenforceable any way.  If you get a ticket just dont pay it.  Make them take you to court if they so wish, they probably won't.  Height barrier are another matter;  they ARE discriminatory as I explained in my previous post so complaints ought to be made and I shall a make it my business to do so whenever I am baulked by one.  The entry in the council letter   The Council has received representations from the owners of such vehicles and the Campaign for Real Aires that overnight parking / sleeping should be permitted on its car parks; however the Council does not believe this is appropriate for a number of reasons. These include the fact that the district has a very large number of authorised camping sites – including over 100 certified locations with just five pitches to large commercial sites with leisure facilities, bars and restaurants – therefore catering for a very diverse range of preferences which the Council believes it is unfair to undermine given the investment made in facilities by these businesses; issues of amenity for local residents adjoining public car parks and the costs involved to Council Tax payers in providing additional facilities for motorhome owners such as the provision of water and waste facilities. irritated me
> Many of us just do not want any of these facilities that the big sites offer and charge much for.  CLs, even, have become much too dear with unwanted facilities which is partly why we park off grid and have equipped ourselves with the ability to store our waste for protracted periods until we find a suitable place to dispose of them.


Here in Northumberland I have noted all of the carparks I have seen have the same signage. No camping, cooking, or sleeping. You can pay for up to 72 hours but must leave for 6 hours before returning. 
Now to me none of this makes any sense.
You could bypass cooking by eating out, bringing cold food, sandwiches etc, and how can they prove you were sleeping. 
Not living here I don’t know if these rules are enforced.
But it seems impossible that they are enforceable.


----------



## maureenandtom

Apart from the error in admitting they were discriminating against Travellers, the situation in N Norfolk now mirrors the situation in Fleetwood about four or five years ago.   That was documented in one or two threads but this one https://wildcamping.co.uk/threads/fleetwood-marine-hall-car-park.53477/page-2 gives a bit of reasoning.

N Norfolk now says, _we don't permit camping or sleeping. _ And it's in a byelaw. It would be unusual to have a byelaw and an off=street parking order covering the same car park and I can't find the bye-law or the 2012 original order. I can find a number of amendments to the order but not the original order. I'd have to ask for it. A byelaw creates a crime. An off-sreet parking order doesn't. So a different process.

In Fleetwood I just wore them down I think.   Finally I asked them to issue me a PCN – I would tell them when I would offend to save them the trouble of looking for me but they didn't take me up on the offer.   I sort of lost interest eventualy but emailed them now and again.   Once with a photograph of the van time stamped during the offence period.  "_Will this do as proof to issue a PCN?"_

A year or so later  they re-opened Marine Hall Car Park with a £5 overnight charge but free through the day.  I stayed there a couple of months ago and very nice it is too.    The cost of an ice cream cornet for two was £5 so you can stay overnight for the price of an ice cream.

Plenty of people here said they wouldn't be seen dead in Fleetwood. So that is one extra place we can now be seen dead in.

So.   Identical reasons for no camping or sleeping and, I think, no offence for a ticket to be issued.  There is no PCN code for campng or sleeping.  Different if it is a byelaw though.

Whether it's worth carrying on a fight I don't know.  Norfolk is a long way from me.  Fleetwood is just 25 or 30 miles.



maureenandtom said:


> Wyre Council have replied very promptly.   The PCN Code they intend to use is PCN Code 95.    This is *"Parked in a parking place for a purpose other than that designated".*
> 
> The prohibition on the notice is for camping and sleeping.   If we have barbecues out or something of this sort then that's it, you're caught and you're camping.   Otherwise I don't see how the Traffic Adjudicator can be persuaded that you're camping instead of parking.
> 
> The prohibition on sleeping is the usual thing we've seen often.  I don't see how it can ever be proved that you were asleep and councils routinely complain that they have difficulty proving sleeping.
> 
> Certainly when North Devon District Council tried it with me they abandoned their PCN at the first informal stage.  I wrote of it here http://www.wildcamping.co.uk/forums...ale.html?highlight=A+long+and+mysterious+tale and good things happened in Devon after that.
> 
> The notice, like _"No Overnighting" _has no teeth and is meant to intimidate.
> 
> I intend to ask how they intend to monitor whether or not a vehcle's occupants are sleeping.


----------



## Val54

Fisherman said:


> Well possibly that legislation is wrong, discriminatory and should be questioned.


It was certainly challenged by the various groups that represent the travellers, as always, the bottom line is that if adequate provision was made by councils then incursions would reduce and the need for draconian legislation becomes a last resort.


----------



## Val54

maureenandtom said:


> Apart from the error in admitting they were discriminating against Travellers, the situation in N Norfolk now mirrors the situation in Fleetwood about four or five years ago.   That was documented in one or two threads but this one https://wildcamping.co.uk/threads/fleetwood-marine-hall-car-park.53477/page-2 gives a bit of reasoning.
> 
> N Norfolk now says, _we don't permit camping or sleeping. _ And it's in a byelaw. It would be unusual to have a byelaw and an off=street parking order covering the same car park and I can't find the bye-law or the 2012 original order. I can find a number of amendments to the order but not the original order. I'd have to ask for it. A byelaw creates a crime. An off-sreet parking order doesn't. So a different process.
> 
> In Fleetwood I just wore them down I think.   Finally I asked them to issue me a PCN – I would tell them when I would offend to save them the trouble of looking for me but they didn't take me up on the offer.   I sort of lost interest eventualy but emailed them now and again.   Once with a photograph of the van time stamped during the offence period.  "_Will this do as proof to issue a PCN?"_
> 
> A year or so later  they re-opened Marine Hall Car Park with a £5 overnight charge but free through the day.  I stayed there a couple of months ago and very nice it is too.    The cost of an ice cream cornet for two was £5 so you can stay overnight for the price of an ice cream.
> 
> Plenty of people here said they wouldn't be seen dead in Fleetwood. So that is one extra place we can now be seen dead in.
> 
> So.   Identical reasons for no camping or sleeping and, I think, no offence for a ticket to be issued.  There is no PCN code for campng or sleeping.  Different if it is a byelaw though.
> 
> Whether it's worth carrying on a fight I don't know.  Norfolk is a long way from me.  Fleetwood is just 25 or 30 miles.


I'm not familiar with the area but previous replies from the Town Council highlighted the fact that the majority of car parks are run/owned/managed by the Holkham Estate which leaves us nowhere in terms of pursuing bylaws or Traffic Orders.


----------



## gasgas

_"The prohibition on the notice is for camping and sleeping.   If we have barbecues out or something of this sort then that's it, you're caught and you're camping.   Otherwise I don't see how the Traffic Adjudicator can be persuaded that you're camping instead of parking."_

Some years ago it has to be admitted I asked my friend who was a traffic cop and a fellow member of the caravan club I belonged to, if we are allowed to stop overnight in a layby. He said there is a difference between parking and 'camping' for want of a better word. If you pull into a layby with a caravan (or presumably in your motorhome) and stop and have a brew, or a meal, or get into bed and go to sleep, that is parking. If you either a) put the legs down on your caravan and/or b) put out table and chairs and have a bbq or outside cooking, that is what is called 'Taking up residence'. 
Parking is perfectly OK. Taking up residence is an offence. So in a caravan, just leave it hitched to the tow car, don't put the legs down and you are fine. In a motorhome, just park.
Someone else I knew took to sleeping overnight on a beach in his car. He said, but I don't think it was challenged, that if he was woken up he would just claim that he was a Buddhist and was meditating. I think that's pushing it a bit!


----------



## Robmac

gasgas said:


> _"The prohibition on the notice is for camping and sleeping.   If we have barbecues out or something of this sort then that's it, you're caught and you're camping.   Otherwise I don't see how the Traffic Adjudicator can be persuaded that you're camping instead of parking."_
> 
> Some years ago it has to be admitted I asked my friend who was a traffic cop and a fellow member of the caravan club I belonged to, if we are allowed to stop overnight in a layby. He said there is a difference between parking and 'camping' for want of a better word. If you pull into a layby with a caravan (or presumably in your motorhome) and stop and have a brew, or a meal, or get into bed and go to sleep, that is parking. If you either a) put the legs down on your caravan and/or b) put out table and chairs and have a bbq or outside cooking, that is what is called 'Taking up residence'.
> Parking is perfectly OK. Taking up residence is an offence. So in a caravan, just leave it hitched to the tow car, don't put the legs down and you are fine. In a motorhome, just park.
> Someone else I knew took to sleeping overnight on a beach in his car. He said, but I don't think it was challenged, that if he was woken up he would just claim that he was a Buddhist and was meditating. I think that's pushing it a bit!



Only problem I can see there is, that if you ask 2 different cops you will get 2 different answers.


----------



## Fisherman

Robmac said:


> Only problem I can see there is, that if you ask 2 different cops you will get 2 different answers.


Maybe even three


----------



## Robmac

Fisherman said:


> Maybe even three



Hello, hello, hello!


----------



## Fisherman

gasgas said:


> _"The prohibition on the notice is for camping and sleeping.   If we have barbecues out or something of this sort then that's it, you're caught and you're camping.   Otherwise I don't see how the Traffic Adjudicator can be persuaded that you're camping instead of parking."_
> 
> Some years ago it has to be admitted I asked my friend who was a traffic cop and a fellow member of the caravan club I belonged to, if we are allowed to stop overnight in a layby. He said there is a difference between parking and 'camping' for want of a better word. If you pull into a layby with a caravan (or presumably in your motorhome) and stop and have a brew, or a meal, or get into bed and go to sleep, that is parking. If you either a) put the legs down on your caravan and/or b) put out table and chairs and have a bbq or outside cooking, that is what is called 'Taking up residence'.
> Parking is perfectly OK. Taking up residence is an offence. So in a caravan, just leave it hitched to the tow car, don't put the legs down and you are fine. In a motorhome, just park.
> Someone else I knew took to sleeping overnight on a beach in his car. He said, but I don't think it was challenged, that if he was woken up he would just claim that he was a Buddhist and was meditating. I think that's pushing it a bit!


We use the term on here wild camping, but strictly speaking you are not camping unless you are in a tent. The first camp sites in this country appeared before the first car was ever driven. So if you are within your vehicle parked up, no matter what you do inside the vehicle it’s not camping. These signs only prove how ignorant many are about what camping actually his.

Here’s the definition from the Cambridge dictionary.

camping
noun [ U ]

UK  

 /ˈkæm.pɪŋ/ US  

 /ˈkæm.pɪŋ/

A2
*the activity of staying in a tent *on holiday: 
We used to go camping in Spain when I was a child.
camping equipment
More examples

We took a calor gas stove for cooking on when we went camping.
It's a good job they didn't go camping last weekend - the weather was awful.
We were weighed down with all our camping equipment - sleeping bags, gas cookers and pans.
I'm not keen on camping - I'd rather stay in a bed-and-breakfast where you are warm and dry.
The shop in town sells everything you need for camping, and has tents for hire at £10 a week.


----------



## SquirrellCook

Fisherman said:


> no matter what you do inside the vehicle it’s not camping.


And I thought when I dressed up it was?


----------



## peter palance

Robmac said:


> Hello, hello, hello!


sorry but and i say but. well its good night from him. good day to you. ok.pj. many happy returns. sorry this spot is full. ?


----------



## peter palance

SquirrellCook said:


> And I thought when I dressed up it was?


glamping yes keep it clean. clean i said.the dress. ok.pj.


----------



## maureenandtom

North Norfolk District Council maintains a register of authorised camping sites and they've made it available to me.   But not just to me though I had to ask for it, they publish it on the interent too.   This might do it lic_register_caravan.pdf (north-norfolk.gov.uk) but I attach a copy anyway.

North Norfolk say they have already rejected proposals from Campra but, without stepping on Campra's toes, I've asked if they would like discussions with me during which we might also be able to come to some agreement to sort out their infringement of the Race Relations Act.   Their excuse that barriers are closed only when requested by the Police is unlikely to be supported by the Police but I'll wait to see if they take up my offer = a reply expected in January.

The council does make two sites available for Travellers - opened by the council when required.   I don't know what the trigger is for opening them but I'll probably find out.   If the council were to keep them open at all times then I'd use them if in suitable places, would others?


----------



## Val54

maureenandtom said:


> North Norfolk District Council maintains a register of authorised camping sites and they've made it available to me.   But not just to me though I had to ask for it, they publish it on the interent too.   This might do it lic_register_caravan.pdf (north-norfolk.gov.uk) but I attach a copy anyway.
> 
> North Norfolk say they have already rejected proposals from Campra but, without stepping on Campra's toes, I've asked if they would like discussions with me during which we might also be able to come to some agreement to sort out their infringement of the Race Relations Act.   Their excuse that barriers are closed only when requested by the Police is unlikely to be supported by the Police but I'll wait to see if they take up my offer = a reply expected in January.
> 
> The council does make two sites available for Travellers - opened by the council when required.   I don't know what the trigger is for opening them but I'll probably find out.   If the council were to keep them open at all times then I'd use them if in suitable places, would others?


I doubt they would let "non-travellers" use them. Only an informed guess but I reckon they are only opened as transit sites when either the Police or their Gypsy Liaison Officer knows there is a need. If they were available to "allcomers" they wouldn't count towards the Council's traveller provision.


----------



## Rolyan57

Perhaps it should be referred to as the “alledged” infringement of the race relations act.  Especially when put in writing, visible to many, referring to a large public organisation.


----------



## Fisherman

Val54 said:


> I doubt they would let "non-travellers" use them. Only an informed guess but I reckon they are only opened as transit sites when either the Police or their Gypsy Liaison Officer knows there is a need. If they were available to "allcomers" they wouldn't count towards the Council's traveller provision.


Yes I agree, also its important that we are not seen as travellers.
Using facilities meant for the traveling community, would lead to confusion as to our identity, and would generate bad PR.


----------



## maureenandtom

Rolyan57 said:


> Perhaps it should be referred to as the “alledged” infringement of the race relations act.  Especially when put in writing, visible to many, referring to a large public organisation.


Yes, you're right.   Completely unfair to assume the council's guilt and almost in the same breath demand that Travellers must not be assumed guilty unless charged and convicted - though plenty do.  I'll modify that in future.


----------



## maureenandtom

Val54 said:


> I doubt they would let "non-travellers" use them. Only an informed guess but I reckon they are only opened as transit sites when either the Police or their Gypsy Liaison Officer knows there is a need. If they were available to "allcomers" they wouldn't count towards the Council's traveller provision.



I think that is probably an accurate guess.   I've asked for a discussion with a Manager with Tourism admin in his job description.  Up to now my discussions have been with the Chief Executive (this almost never happens - only once before with me) or with his PA.   I've no idea if this will come off but I think it might and I thought I might sound out how people might feel about a shared facility if it were offered.  Just trying to second guess the Council.  At least this council does have a provision for Travellers; my impression is that few do.


----------



## Val54

maureenandtom said:


> I think that is probably an accurate guess.   I've asked for a discussion with a Manager with Tourism admin in his job description.  Up to now my discussions have been with the Chief Executive (this almost never happens - only once before with me) or with his PA.   I've no idea if this will come off but I think it might and I thought I might sound out how people might feel about a shared facility if it were offered.  Just trying to second guess the Council.  At least this council does have a provision for Travellers; my impression is that few do.


I think there is more provision than we give credit for, but it is mostly permanent, transit sites are rarer as per your impression. It is worth trying to second guess what the Council might say but I think sharing might be a step too far. My take would be that "travellers" would be reluctant to share "their facilities" as they are so hard to come by, and the Council wouldn't instigate "sharing" without consulting the traveller organisations. However the Tourism Manager might be persuaded to investigate whether the Council own other land that could be made available for MH stopovers.


----------



## Fisherman

I would be astounded if any council proposed sharing, and even more surprised if many from our community would see this as a solution, or would wish to stay in such a site. Travellers needs are different from ours, and other than the fact that we travel from place to place in similar accommodation, we have little in common. They are a race, we are a group of individuals from varying backgrounds, who are generally older.
We don’t really ask for much, we don’t need our children educated, ad hoc medical arrangements, dedicated waste disposal etc, and we don’t normally spend anymore than one or two nights in any one place at a time.
All we need is a place to park, where we feel safe, where we don’t create issues for local communities, and unlike travellers our numbers dwindle in the winter period.
We are simply people with larger vehicles, who wish to park day and night, whereas others normally only wish to park during the day. Others have sought to create differences between us and cars that in reality don’t exist for their own ends.


----------



## Costers

In no way do I want to put you off any conversation with the council. I’m not sure that it is right to assume that the travellers would want to share with outsiders.


----------



## REC

And to think this all started when we were not able to park in Wells during the day....
Maybe raising the Councils awareness will benefit all of us. Thanks, Tom, for all your time.


----------



## maureenandtom

I've now received the attached from the council.   The council now says that barriers were erected on advice from the police with the intention that they could be closed (and reopened?) at police request.    The council says the subject is now closed; the council has nothing to add.

I knew of Campra's approach to the council and knew of the council's rejection of their approach but I thought it worthwhile to make the attempt again.   That subject is now closed too and the council has nothing to add.

So, the situation now is that the exclusion of an ethnic minority from publicly owned car parks – and not accused of any crime – is at the request of the police.   Not the council's fault at all.


----------



## Rolyan57

There have been so many pages now that I can’t remember the full discussion. 

Are the barriers now fitted permanently, 12 months of the year?  Or only when the Police advise it in specific circumstances?


----------



## Harrytherid

Yes witzend, we should.  How do we do that?  Also, how do we tell them that we do not either need nor want what sites have to offer. 

Harry


----------



## mariesnowgoose

REC said:


> Parked up near Blakeney in Norfolk and thought we would go to Wells for the day, have lunch and a bit of shopping. All car parks now have 2.2 m height barrier even the, manned, coach park! *Spoke to chap on duty, thinking he would raise the bar as he was sitting there and a coach already parked*. The answer was "no, we are onhigh alert for travellers"! I pointed out that this means Wells don't want any motorhomers spending their money there, he agreed and helped us tiurn round and leave! Absolutely fuming as this is just so short sighted. We have visited often up till now...why not have barriers and pay to leave parking? Will be writing to the council to express our disgust




This was a car park where entry is controlled by human operatives. Maybe the 'chap on duty' could be instructed by management to exercise a bit of discretion? Surely there must be ways to distinguish between genuine tourists/day trippers in a single motorhome/campervan and a group of travellers turning up mob handed?

It's a thorny problem, and a very unfair situation. Vehicles are driven by all sections of the population, no matter what their race, creed, religion or ability.

To have a whole class of vehicle type banned because of the anti-social actions of a minority group who happen to use that type of vehicle is a nonsense. It's done because our type of vehicle is distinctive and stands out from everyday run-of-the mill cars and vans. As 'leisure motorhomers' we are still very much in a minority/specialist group of road users.

These are public car parks. The attitude of councils like Norfolk is lazy and 'jobsworth', but unfortunately more typical than not. But it is definitely discriminatory, imo. Unfortunately I just don't think there's a big enough volume of motorhome users like us to have any clout with changing some local council attitudes. Change happens incredibly slowly in the public service arena in Britain.

It's a real shame, but the only place I now think is worth making the effort to travel around in a camper with the minimal amount of aggro and local hostility is on the other side of the channel.


----------



## Fisherman

mariesnowgoose said:


> This was a car park where entry is controlled by human operatives. Maybe the 'chap on duty' could be instructed by management to exercise a bit of discretion? Surely there must be ways to distinguish between genuine tourists/day trippers in a single motorhome/campervan and a group of travellers turning up mob handed?
> 
> It's a thorny problem, and a very unfair situation. Vehicles are driven by all sections of the population, no matter what their race, creed, religion or ability.
> 
> To have a whole class of vehicle type banned because of the anti-social actions of a minority group who happen to use that type of vehicle is a nonsense. It's done because our type of vehicle is distinctive and stands out from everyday run-of-the mill cars and vans. As 'leisure motorhomers' we are still very much in a minority/specialist group of road users.
> 
> These are public car parks. The attitude of councils like Norfolk is lazy and 'jobsworth', but unfortunately more typical than not. But it is definitely discriminatory, imo. Unfortunately I just don't think there's a big enough volume of motorhome users like us to have any clout with changing some local council attitudes. Change happens incredibly slowly in the public service arena in Britain.
> 
> It's a real shame, but the only place I now think is worth making the effort to travel around in a camper with the minimal amount of aggro and local hostility is on the other side of the channel.


As you say Marie these are public carparks, paid for and run by public bodies financed from public taxes, but sadly they don’t reckon that we fall within the definition of “members of the public.”


----------



## barge1914

We’ve just had a months tour round East Anglia. Not an experience we are likely to repeat anytime soon. Virtually all the one-time Wildcamping spots anywhere near the coast or immediate hinterland have disappeared behind ‘signs’ or height barriers. In numerous towns, not just Wells it is almost impossible to even park for height barriers, size, length or weight restrictions. This is January, a large proportion of the seaside carparks were virtually deserted, but inaccessible, and in towns where the numbers of empty boarded up shops suggest local businesses could benefit from some winter visitors. 

In the majority of car parks in East Suffolk there is a blanket ban on vehicles longer than 5.5m. (which you only know about if you did around on the councils website…it seems they prefer to dish out £80 fines rather than put signs up to tell you).

An email from the council at Woodbridge elicited that ‘you can still park on the street’ (where legal) ….not exactly beneficial to the flow of traffic or the houses of those I had to park in front of…and of course it arrived several days after I had already left. They generously on reflection after receiving complaints have designated 12 car parks in the whole county where we can park (not stay) , clumped together in places such as the dismal bowels of Great Yarmouth, most towns with nowhere at all to even park…even inland ones. If it wasn’t for our SNT card which at least gave access to National Trust car parks I think we’d have turned tail and headed north to Scotland (but we’ve been there 5 or 6 times already in the last 18 months).

We are most definitely going to continue with spring and Autumn in Europe, winters in Scotland…b****r England! But thanks to Boris and Brexit we’ve still got to find something for the intervening 3 months. Every year I seem to like my country less and less…there was a time when I never thought I would say that…long ago!


----------



## Norfolk NewBoy

For clarification, Gt Yarmouth is in Norfolk, not East Suffolk. You can park foc for approx 1 mile along the beachside north of the Venetian Waterways. This is closer to the town centre/amusements than CAMC site at the racecourse. I don't think I would overnight there.

There is also plenty of parking foc along the A1243 South Denes Road, although there is a lot of industrial port activity. The side roads are also available and even South Beach Parade has some spots.

"Just" across the river (probably 3-5 mile trip) is Gorleston with nice spots near the pier (Quay Rd) and you can get right next to the beach if you are early enough. I've seen folk parked on Riverside but, again, it's semi industrial. (I would advise not trying to get to the High Street by going up South Icehouse Hill.)

Gordon

If you park in E Suffolk spots, the first 30 mins is free BUT you need to get a ticket from the machine!


----------



## barge1914

Oh sorry, I’m conflating Yarmouth with Aldeburgh. Albeit we managed to find a little layby by the coast just outside Aldeburgh.


----------



## Rolyan57

So, does anyone know if the original car park now has the height barrier in place 24/7?  Or like the proverbial parrot has it now ‘ceased to be’ and is no longer a problem?


----------



## NudeJude

witzend said:


> Would it do any good to start one of these petitions to the government asking for us to be treated the same as other road users who have parking supplied for them


I was just wondering the same thing, maybe it's time to start standing up for ourselves, although like so many other petitions I can't help thinking people will be too lazy to just click a few buttons to add their name, and wait for someone else to do the job for them.


----------



## Rolyan57

NudeJude said:


> I was just wondering the same thing, maybe it's time to start standing up for ourselves, although like so many other petitions I can't help thinking people will be too lazy to just click a few buttons to add their name, and wait for someone else to do the job for them.


It needs 100,000 names just to get it discussed. That discussion is a subcommittee discussing it in a small ante room. That decides if it can progress further.

So no, there’s not a snowballs chance in hell of getting a petition asking for parking through to the Bill stage.


----------



## Slowho

GreggBear said:


> If those groups are protected, but we are not, surely that is discrimination in itself towards us....


They get round with height restrictions baning certain sized vehicles is not against the law..


----------



## Steve C

Fisherman said:


> As you say Marie these are public carparks, paid for and run by public bodies financed from public taxes, but sadly they don’t reckon that we fall within the definition of “members of the public.”


I believe it has been pointed out before that these are privately owned carparks, owned by the Holkham Estate.


----------



## Fisherman

Steve C said:


> I believe it has been pointed out before that these are privately owned carparks, owned by the Holkham Estate.


Really, then perhaps you can inform us all why on post 18 the council replied to an enquiry about what happened at the carpark mentioned by the OP. Also even if you are correct, you are completely missing the point. We as a group are constantly discriminated against by such treatment, and by some shameful uncorroborated  reporting within the media. Clearly this thread does involve some if not all car parks which are council run, hence why Tom has been involved in protracted discussion with Norfolk District Council over this issue. Also please take a look at post 20, were the council give justification for the installation of the barriers. There are other posts relating to council replies on this thread for your perusal.


----------



## Norfolk NewBoy

We visited Wells in the car last week and although I can't guarantee these observations, I'm pretty sure they are correct.

Port of Wells Private car park: £5 for 24h [cash, card, app]; camper vans banned by notice. ANPR in action so possibly get a PCN.
Freeman Street: £1 for 1h upwards to £4(?) [cash, card, app]: 2.1m height restriction by metal barrier (in action).
Stearmans Yard (long term): £2.50 (?);  2.1m height restriction by metal barrier (in action).
Wells Town car park (8am-5pm (?) £3.50 (?) [Holkham estate]);  2.1m height restriction by metal barrier (NOT in action). Several MHs parked overhanging grass areas.

I didn't go to Beach Road car park.

Gordon


----------



## Rolyan57

There are barriers fitted to various car parks owned by the Council and Holkham Estate.

The Council reported that they  are not permanent and are only closed when the local police supply intelligence that travellers are going into the locality.  This is usually the week either side of the 15th August but there have been other unforeseen closures.

It was reported on here that the barriers are in response to the damage, violence and intimidation when travellers had previously taken over the car parks. Having witnessed this first hand I can understand the response.

Perhaps we would achieve more if we appreciated and supported the locals concerns and focused on ensuring that the closures are not permanent.


----------



## Fisherman

Rolyan57 said:


> There are barriers fitted to various car parks owned by the Council and Holkham Estate.
> 
> The Council reported that they  are not permanent and are only closed when the local police supply intelligence that travellers are going into the locality.  This is usually the week either side of the 15th August but there have been other unforeseen closures.
> 
> It was reported on here that the barriers are in response to the damage, violence and intimidation when travellers had previously taken over the car parks. Having witnessed this first hand I can understand the response.
> 
> Perhaps we would achieve more if we appreciated and supported the locals concerns and focused on ensuring that the closures are not permanent.


I wholeheartedly agree, that any justified concerns from any local community should be paramount in any decision making process. It’s just a shame that in many cases that these concerns are based on false or exaggerated reporting, and it’s also a shame that our concerns for these local communities are never reported within the media.


----------



## mistericeman

.


----------



## yorkslass

Rolyan57 said:


> There are barriers fitted to various car parks owned by the Council and Holkham Estate.
> 
> The Council reported that they  are not permanent and are only closed when the local police supply intelligence that travellers are going into the locality.  This is usually the week either side of the 15th August but there have been other unforeseen closures.
> 
> It was reported on here that the barriers are in response to the damage, violence and intimidation when travellers had previously taken over the car parks. Having witnessed this first hand I can understand the response.
> 
> Perhaps we would achieve more if we appreciated and supported the locals concerns and focused on ensuring that the closures are not permanent.


If the councils statement is correct.....the barriers are not permanent, I wonder why they are being used over winter,  seems a bit of overkill.


----------



## Rolyan57

Fisherman said:


> I wholeheartedly agree, that any justified concerns from any local community should be paramount in any decision making process. It’s just a shame that in many cases that these concerns are based on false or exaggerated reporting, and it’s also a shame that our concerns for these local communities are never reported within the media.





yorkslass said:


> If the councils statement is correct.....the barriers are not permanent, I wonder why they are being used over winter,  seems a bit of overkill.


To me, that’s the bit we should be questioning.  Assuming those with barriers used over winter are not private ones that have always used them.


----------



## suneye

I haven't read all of the comments above but some of the general 'feel' of the posts make me really sad.  My Grandad was a Romany gypsy and many of my mum's standards came from this culture.  All I can say is that the Gypsies ( and I cannot comment on travelers ) have very high standards of conduct and hygiene and my mum was obsessive about cleanliness and tidiness.  Having lived in other countries during my life I am also aware that people are people and all communities have good and bad, unfortunately we often choose to only note the bad and tar everyone with that brush.  If we used the same criteria to judge ourselves we could not be so self righteous about our own 'high' standards.  Only last week I was in a once pristine NT carpark and it had pile of toilet paper that had obviously come out of a MH cassette toilet.  One of our local roads is used by MH and vans in the summer and I do not think that any of us could be proud of the state many leave behind despite it being a protected nature reserve.  I don't think we can say that 'they' are bad and 'we' are good.  I hate the laws in this country that do not allow us to park overnight but also accept that most of time I am actually, probably breaking some law or bylaw by sleeping in my van.  Please try to treat people as you would want to be treated and judge people as you find them not by prejudice or stereotyping.  PS One post used the word Pikey because it was able to be used on this group when the word he wanted to use was not, I would like to say that in 2022 I wonder what these standards are based on.


----------



## Fisherman

suneye said:


> I haven't read all of the comments above but some of the general 'feel' of the posts make me really sad.  My Grandad was a Romany gypsy and many of my mum's standards came from this culture.  All I can say is that the Gypsies ( and I cannot comment on travelers ) have very high standards of conduct and hygiene and my mum was obsessive about cleanliness and tidiness.  Having lived in other countries during my life I am also aware that people are people and all communities have good and bad, unfortunately we often choose to only note the bad and tar everyone with that brush.  If we used the same criteria to judge ourselves we could not be so self righteous about our own 'high' standards.  Only last week I was in a once pristine NT carpark and it had pile of toilet paper that had obviously come out of a MH cassette toilet.  One of our local roads is used by MH and vans in the summer and I do not think that any of us could be proud of the state many leave behind despite it being a protected nature reserve.  I don't think we can say that 'they' are bad and 'we' are good.  I hate the laws in this country that do not allow us to park overnight but also accept that most of time I am actually, probably breaking some law or bylaw by sleeping in my van.  Please try to treat people as you would want to be treated and judge people as you find them not by prejudice or stereotyping.  PS One post used the word Pikey because it was able to be used on this group when the word he wanted to use was not, I would like to say that in 2022 I wonder what these standards are based on.


Gypsies and travellers have different requirements than we have suneye.
But they suffer from the same press misrepresentation that we do.
Whats important to us that we are not treated as them.
And I don’t say that in an offensive or detrimental way.

We don’t require education for our children, use of medical facilities, and many other things. We don’t tend to remain in situ for long periods.

You are spot on we have idiots amongst us, I have seen poor selfish behaviour myself, and so does every other group you could mention who arrive in local communities.

I can only apologise if you felt that some comments were unfair, but please remember that this thread was created due to such poor behaviour not from any in here, but from Norfolk County Council, and the police towards the gypsie and traveller communities, something that Tom has highlighted in his dealings with the council on this matter.


----------



## Robmac

Fisherman said:


> Gypsies and travellers have different requirements than we have suneye.
> But they suffer from the same press misrepresentation that we do.
> Whats important to us that we are not treated as them.
> And I don’t say that in an offensive or detrimental way.
> 
> We don’t require education for our children, use of medical facilities, and many other things. We don’t tend to remain in situ for long periods.
> 
> You are spot on we have idiots amongst us, I have seen poor selfish behaviour myself, and so does every other group you could mention who arrive in local communities.
> 
> I can only apologise if you felt that some comments were unfair, but please remember that this thread was created due to such poor behaviour not from any in here, but from Norfolk County Council, and the police towards the gypsie and traveller communities.



Well said Bill. 

Suneye is right regarding Gypsies, I know several - some of the nicest people I have ever met, some not so but a minority as in most groups. I have been in their caravans and you could eat your dinner off of the floor, I have drunk with them and had the time of my life! They never forget you and always come over with a hearty handshake if they come in my local. Also the most respectful people you will ever see down at the cemetery.  I know I don't really need to tell you any of this.

There were a lot of problems in Norfolk, a whole town terrorised by travellers, but these people were an entirely different group altogether. You are of course right though, we have different needs and in that respect these differences should be recognised and addressed.


----------



## Fisherman

Robmac said:


> Well said Bill.
> 
> Suneye is right regarding Gypsies, I know several - some of the nicest people I have ever met, some not so but a minority as in most groups. I have been in their caravans and you could eat your dinner off of the floor, I have drunk with them and had the time of my life! They never forget you and always come over with a hearty handshake if they come in my local. Also the most respectful people you will ever see down at the cemetery.  I know I don't really need to tell you any of this.
> 
> There were a lot of problems in Norfolk, a whole town terrorised by travellers, but these people were an entirely different group altogether. You are of course right though, we have different needs and in that respect these differences should be recognised and addressed.


I totally agree Rob.


----------



## suneye

I agree that our needs are different that wasn't my point.  My point was that not all Gypsies and travelers are messy, badly behaved and terrorise the local community and not all wild campers spend money in the local community, abide by laws and by-laws and are by default respectful of their surroundings.  I just think we have to remember that these people are people like us trying to get by the best they can but unlike most of us, do not have the security of a house to run back to.  I am not saying that bad behavior should not be called out or dealt with by the law and Gypsies themselves do not like behavior that brings them into disrepute but some (by no means all) of the language I wanted to challenge.  It is not right to condemn a whole community into a sin bin and therefore justify being rude and disrespectful including using words  whose equivalent for other groups would not be tolerated and to remember for every criticism that sparks that attitude the same finger could be pointed back at this community. Call me woke or a snowflake I don't care I have seen how much standing up for black rights has affected my black daughter and if I feel this disrespect two generations removed I feel I should point it out and I am happy to have the freedom to speak my mind on this open minded forum.


----------

