Scarborough traders complain

[John H]

How can making public bodies work honestly show a lack of common sense? I don't want an argument about legality or illegality. Dishonesty is dishonesty whatever words you use. Ethically wrong for them to show notices they have no power to enforce, ok? Let's not weasel on about precise meanings of words. These signs are wrong. Why do you want public bodies to continue using them?

As several of us have said, we can all agree that there is a certain immorality about these "deterrent" signs but we need to think very carefully about the consequences before making a fuss. It is highly unlikely (although admittedly not impossible) that local authorities will remove the signs if we create a fuss. At best, the signs will remain in place; at worst the local authorities will be driven to pass TROs that give legal backing to them.

It is not that any of us "want public bodies to continue using them"; it is a question of assessing the likely consequences before taking any action. This is why it IS important to get your words right - it is not merely a pedantic game.

In short, sometimes it is not enough to be right; sometimes it is best to take the quiet road - and, Tom, you can park underneath "no overnighting" signs as often as you like and you will not get any flak from me; my criticism comes when people cause criminal damage because that gives us all a bad name.

 

[Smaug]

Maureen & Tom,

It is not the provision of low cost Aires that is a problem - provided it ADDS to the choice available. My concern is with the removal of the existing options of wild camping, allegedly replacing them with Aires is NOT a benefit for me. Incidentally, I have never used an Aire in my life & probably never will. I will happily pay a farmer, pub owner, or whoever, a fiver or tenner to park in a field for a night, but I wouldn't want to spend my time in grotty lorry parks at the back of town for the same price.

There already are laws to prosecute people who litter or damage when wild camping, I would like to see those used from time to time, perhaps using cameras at hot spots like they do with illegal dumping in the countryside. Just trying to ban everybody is a mean minded & uncalled for solution to a problem that doesn't really seem to exist. There is no way that MH owners will suddenly start using Hotels & B&B tp stay in Scarborough, they will just go elsewhere.

 

[maureenandtom]

Maureen & Tom,

It is not the provision of low cost Aires that is a problem - provided it ADDS to the choice available. My concern is with the removal of the existing options of wild camping, allegedly replacing them with Aires is NOT a benefit for me. Incidentally, I have never used an Aire in my life & probably never will. I will happily pay a farmer, pub owner, or whoever, a fiver or tenner to park in a field for a night, but I wouldn't want to spend my time in grotty lorry parks at the back of town for the same price.

There already are laws to prosecute people who litter or damage when wild camping, I would like to see those used from time to time, perhaps using cameras at hot spots like they do with illegal dumping in the countryside. Just trying to ban everybody is a mean minded & uncalled for solution to a problem that doesn't really seem to exist. There is no way that MH owners will suddenly start using Hotels & B&B tp stay in Scarborough, they will just go elsewhere.

Yes, that is a concern.

[/QUOTE]

If you believe the minutes they have abandoned the attempt to drive us into Hotels, B&Bs or campsites and are trying to cope with the provision of dedicated parking spaces. For convenience I call it an Aire. If you believe the minutes! For once I do believe them.

The council have already pretended they have the powers to ban some overnighting, Their parking manager says below - "Our orders therefore prohibit these practices."

Somewhere in one of these threads is reference to a Scarborough Evening News Item where a council officer, taken to task over his inability to enforce notices, gave as his excuse that it wasn't clear who should enforce them, him or the police or the county council. I can find it if needed. Other councils have been taken to task in their own local press now and again. Poole comes to mind although others escape me right now. The attempt to remove the options of wildcamping has been on their agenda for some time. We lose nothing. That's my opinion but it's a good opinion.

I can cope quite easily with objections like yours because I agree with them. What I'm having difficulty with now is the change of mind from, "Oh, why do they not provide Aires," to "Bloody Scarborough. trying to do us down again."

These are not direct quotations, my own little precis, but I can find them. I wasn't picking on Kimbowbill, hers was the first quotation I came across. There are plenty who have changed their minds. I'd like to know why.

Edit: Here is the news article I talk about above.

http://www.whitbygazette.co.uk/lifestyle/motoring/can_t_legislate_for_camper_vans_1_3649535

It is a disgrace, in my opinion, that councils think they can get away with this rubbish.

 

[AndyC]

A bit of good news

I've just been speaking to a chap from the Hawick Welcome Initiative - they actively want campervans to stay in their town. So they have allocated spaces in a large car park in the centre of town (Common Haugh) for motorhomes to stay overnight for free... Here: 55.42242,-2.791097 (Common Haugh Car Park) - Google Maps

Isn't that a refreshing change?

AndyC

 

[Firefox]

Maureen & Tom, I explained in another thread why challenging these signs is not a good move.

I don't think they are exactly immoral. The councils are putting them up, trying to respond to health and saftey concerns (sometimes dressed up ones I agree, prompted by local campsite owners, but the councils duty is partly to respond to local objections). They don't have the funds at the moment to do proper signs and TRO's everywhere.

But, in a practical sense, you have two scenarios.

1. The signs remain and some people will ignore them, some people won't. Either way you can still wild camp there without a problem.

2. Challenge the signs, and it will be like red rag to a bull. The councils WILL find the money eventually and they will have every reason to do proper TROs after some "clever" person wasted their efforts with the original warning signs. We are going to get slapped in the face big time, and there will be enforcable lines and plates all over the highland lay-bys. Is that what you want? I don't think so.

I appreciate you are trying to support the right thing, but on this problem, you have to see through the human nature, local politics, and practicalities of the situation.

 

[maureenandtom]

Maureen & Tom, I explained in another thread why challenging these signs is not a good move.

I don't think they are exactly immoral. The councils are putting them up, trying to respond to health and saftey concerns (sometimes dressed up ones I agree, prompted by local campsite owners, but the councils duty is partly to respond to local objections). They don't have the funds at the moment to do proper signs and TRO's everywhere.

But, in a practical sense, you have two scenarios.

1. The signs remain and some people will ignore them, some people won't. Either way you can still wild camp there without a problem.

2. Challenge the signs, and it will be like red rag to a bull. The councils WILL find the money eventually and they will have every reason to do proper TROs after some "clever" person wasted their efforts with the original warning signs. We are going to get slapped in the face big time, and there will be enforcable lines and plates all over the highland lay-bys. Is that what you want? I don't think so.

I appreciate you are trying to support the right thing, but on this problem, you have to see through the human nature, local politics, and practicalities of the situation.

I don't think anyone in this thread is trying to challenge the signs in Scarborough. Their local press already did that.

My views are pretty transparent about the Scottish signs. I don't want to muddy the waters in this thread but I resent the public being divided into classes. One class knows the signs are rubbish and gets away with it, another class is frightened and willigly or unwillingly obeys them. The first class wants to keep that status quo because the alternative might be worse. This means that the first want to keep their privilege at the expense of the second. I don't like the immorality of being in the first class.

There's a quotation tripping into the back of my head and if I get the time I'll look it up. Something about when public fears the government equals bad, when the government fears the public equals good. Not meant to be funny.


Edit: I look back and see this had already been mentioned in this thread - my apologies, my text above remains unedited

The quotation is attributed to Thomas Jefferson but I think he must have been thinking of something more weighty than parking signs: "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

 

[kimbowbill]

It looks like you were successful. You changed his mind, Why have you changed your mind? I don't want bad temper, I truly want to know. Your answer might very well change my own mind.

I dont think for one minute my email changed their mind, i didnt even get a proper response.

i've changed my mind because i just cant be bothered, i travel alone, i dont want to visit a place where i feel uncomfortable, and that i do, my time out and about is precious, like i'm sure everyone elses is, i just dont like been stared at when i park up or feel that some locals may slash my tyres, or damge my van, thats the feeling i got from the posts in the gazette, we are really hated by them and i'm sorry, my very hard earned money aint going into somewhere where i am hated.

Jenny

 

[maureenandtom]

I dont think for one minute my email changed their mind, i didnt even get a proper response.

i've changed my mind because i just cant be bothered, i travel alone, i dont want to visit a place where i feel uncomfortable, and that i do, my time out and about is precious, like i'm sure everyone elses is, i just dont like been stared at when i park up or feel that some locals may slash my tyres, or damge my van, thats the feeling i got from the posts in the gazette, we are really hated by them and i'm sorry, my very hard earned money aint going into somewhere where i am hated.

Jenny

That's ok, I understand.

I think maybe you underestimate your persuasive powers though and my voice was added and so were a few others. Thanks for responding.

You know, these things might not happen at a site designated specifically for motorhome use. Not trying to change your mind, just saying. A designated site might not change anything.

Anybody else like to enlighten me? I'm anxious to learn.

 

[kimbowbill]

That's ok, I understand.

I think maybe you underestimate your persuasive powers though and my voice was added and so were a few others. Thanks for responding.

You know, these things might not happen at a site designated specifically for motorhome use. Not trying to change your mind, just saying. A designated site might not change anything.

Anybody else like to enlighten me? I'm anxious to learn.

I think this is a positive move though, it is a step in the right direction, but £10 a night? and then to pay parking for day, so your probaly talking £15, people are just going to park on street then go down in day, its not really solved the problem, i think if they charged £5 i would be happy to pay that and then pay parking the next day as this is what i have done in the past. It will be interesting to see what happens

 

[Rubbertramp]

My views are pretty transparent about the Scottish signs. I don't want to muddy the waters in this thread but I resent the public being divided into classes. One class knows the signs are rubbish and gets away with it, another class is frightened and willigly or unwillingly obeys them. The first class wants to keep that status quo because the alternative might be worse. This means that the first want to keep their privilege at the expense of the second. I don't like the immorality of being in the first class.


The quotation is attributed to Thomas Jefferson but I think he must have been thinking of something more weighty than parking signs: "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

Therin lies the problem....one little word. Those who are too frightened to defy an authority's pettiness need to be reassured and educated so that they can realise that parking near a NOP sign isn't going to kill them.....it's not a hanging offence, in fact it's not even an offence at all (bar defiance of a TRO). Then again, the more people who give in to fear the more room for those of us who are untethered by this emotion.

Applies to all other aspects of life too.

 

[Channa]

I understand the concern that perhaps after a trial period ......everywhere is off limits, and perhaps in Scarboroughs case .....the dedicated spot is the p and r at seamer as an example....miles from the attraction.


The difference I believe between a french aire and what is being proposed, is that the French Aires are generally cheaper ....and offer facilities and are normally within walking distance of the attraction.

Furthermore, there are still other places to park in a French town , and generally you will be left alone,there is a different attitude mindset.
I think there is suspicion that Scarborough., and the others are appeasing a situation and not embracing the spirit that the French do..
For this reason I too have reservations...more along the lines of appeasement rather than our authorities buying into the benefits.....

I doesn't see anything I recall in the minutes that indicated there was benefit.....more a tragic management meeting
Channa

 

[kimbowbill]

Hark at you two, bet your sat side bi side tapping away on keyboard, bet your aving a right ol laugh arnt ya,

 

[Rubbertramp]

Hark at you two, bet your sat side bi side tapping away on keyboard, bet your aving a right ol laugh arnt ya,

Not tonight kid....I've locked him in his cage.....he's been a bad lad!

 

[Channa]

Indeed bad, painted signs in me best English all over his plaster...

Not on a wall oh no, the one on his arm...funny as owt...watching the rubbery one try and type wiv one finger.

He will be popular in Glasgow next week.....not......



Channa

 

[kimbowbill]

Indeed bad, painted signs in me best English all over his plaster...

Not on a wall oh no, the one on his arm...funny as owt...watching the rubbery one try and type wiv one finger.

He will be popular in Glasgow next week.....not......



Channa

what ya done to him? hope you dint mistake him for ya supper and took a shot at him, lol

 

[Channa]

Start new thread hijacki merchants
Channa

 

[scampa]

I also think that £10 per night just for a parking spot with no amenities is way too much. They're probably hoping that with that price, sufficient wildcampers will be persuaded to use a nearby camp-site instead??!

 

[Channa]

I also think that £10 per night just for a parking spot with no amenities is way too much. They're probably hoping that with that price, sufficient wildcampers will be persuaded to use a nearby camp-site instead??!

Cynical but I suspect possibly a very credible interpretation.

Channa

 

[kimbowbill]

I also think that £10 per night just for a parking spot with no amenities is way too much. They're probably hoping that with that price, sufficient wildcampers will be persuaded to use a nearby camp-site instead??!

ya know what Scampa, your spot on there, i thought it but i'm too shy to say it :dance:

 

[John H]

The proof of the pudding.... If enough people think £10 (plus daytime parking fees) is a reasonable deal then the scheme will be a success. Personally, I will not be availing myself of it. But one thing is for sure - if motorhomers don't use the "facility" then they will not be diverting into any of the nearby campsites, so the short-sighted attitude of the local authority/campsite owners will do nothing to encouraging visitors to a town that depends heavily on tourism.

People can write letters, go to meetings, try to change policy - and that is in many ways laudible - but, as Jen said, I would not want to be where there is so much negative feeling towards motorhomers. On the other hand, I feel that, as a group, we should be writing letters of support to councils like Hawick which, according to an earlier post, have dedicated free spaces for us. It is good to know that there are some sensible authorities out there who know that the tarmac we use would be used by nobody else if we weren't there and that if even a small proportion of us shop in the town then they have benefited their local community at zero cost. We learn most things by example; maybe the example set by Hawick (which is a nicer town to visit than Scarborough anyway!) will encourage others. We should certainly be encouraging them. I will be writing - I hope that an "official" letter can be sent by Admin on our behalf.