Wells on Sea...no go area!

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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:cry:
Click to expand...
 
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Our travellers left after a few days wot a mess they left , they were wild camping on rout to Appleby fair
 
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.

Target Hardening Image.jpg
 
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top