Sometimes we're our own worst enemies!

I'm pleased to read that we have at least one person on here (apart from me) who understands that our contribution to the local economy is peanuts! It's laughable to hear people banging on about how much business Scarborough is going to lose, and that we should boycott the place and bring it to its knees!

You are still not getting it - which, as a businessman, I find very interesting. It doesn't matter that we only bring a little business into an area - it IS business and it costs the local authority and the local business community NOTHING to allow us to park overnight in car parks that would otherwise be empty.
 
Yawn, scratch, cough. Mornin' all.

So, after twelve pages, what conclusion have we come to then? :sleep-040:

Just enquirin' :)
 
Last edited:
Quite likely not, but Asda's lawyers might not be happy to allow their managers to permit something which they may not legally be allowed to do.

There's always two sides, 'we' can't see the problem but company lawyers have a different perspective.

AndyC

I know it to. be the case in Doncaster, but Asda has it happens lease land from the council.

It is not unreasonable to assume in some supermarket car parks, covenants are in place

Channa
 
I distrust most ........councillors (fat cats), but not all, majority are completely honest and straight I’m sure

Hi

Being a councillor is a bit like being a motorhomer - you get the blame for the actions of a few! In my experience, the majority are well-meaning and hard-working but there are a significant minority who are there for their own ends. This may simply be that they like the kudos (for doing nothing) or it may be that they are there to push their business interests (be they a shopkeeper, caravan site owner or publican). I have known all these types in my time on the local council and I suspect Scarborough is no different from the councils I have experience of.
 
This is for Channa but also anyone else who is interested.

I cannot understand how we now seem to think that Site owners are complaining about wild campers in order to get us to use their sites instead. It does not hold water in my estimation.

The boom in Caravanning and Motorhoming in the last 10 years or so has outstripped the number of pitches available. This has put the Site owners in a very privileged position. They are almost guaranteed a high occupancy rate for most of the season. The vast majority close for Winter and we therefore make no difference to their business at that time.

Pitch prices have increased steadily. The site owners know all about the Law of Supply and Demand. The only cloud on the horizon this year (deliberate pun) has been this atrocious Summer. It may be even possible to get a reduction on some sites. I have had an offer of 25% of C & CC pitches at Club sites. When Hell freezes offer, I might take them up on that. :lol-049:
 
Hello Mr Northerner Sir,

as you are hell bent in turning this into something it wasn’t, I now feel I have to respond, it most certainly wasn’t my intention to upset anyone, and my statement was meant as a fact, in regards to what I will , will not be doing, I.e, going to scarborough.
ok maybe i should of explained my words better, but you as always twist what people are saying and very often accuse them of victimizing you if they disagree, poor soul....
the use of ‘fat councillor’ which was in hindsight written wrongly (so for any councillor that is like me moving toward a more rotund appearance I am truly sorry), however it was not a reference to weight but fat cats..( I am of reasonable proportion myself nowdays)......
which links as far as i am concerned to those with a little power that push people, via what ever means available to them into their direction with the end result in making money from them......if you decided to look over the last billion threads on here and other forums including the locals rags, you would have seen there has been numerous references to councillors with vested interests, (these can easily be checked on the web , councillors with interests, providing they have listed them all, and I’m sure they have.) there are one or two in the Scarborough area who were talking in their local rags about making motorhome owners use sites, ok they didn’t say their or their families and I'm sure if i really try hard, i may have to admit they are probably trying to get people to go to camp sites other than their own, cos they are elected and have the constituents best interests at heart and would do so as you have said.
in the other thread you jumped up and down and stamped your little feet, bless you, when I replied to you.
Now I will try to explain my stance on this again, I distrust most MP’s and councillors (fat cats), but not all, majority are completely honest and straight I’m sure, I even have a friend who is a councillor and know he doesn’t claim extravagant expenses, or illegal ones. what is claimed by some of our MP’s and Councillors in the name of expenses is a lot and some would say that isn’t in line with what is actually needed to cover costs and thus isn’t in their constituents best interests?..... (Yes they are allowed to claim most of what they do I am sure, however some have feathered their nests, haven’t they. Obviously with their constituent’s interest at heart,) you demanded that I explain what I was saying so I hope I have. Maybe maybe not.

I do not either harass people for using sites and or for paying for them, I use them myself and some good ones that cost a good amount. My reference again taken from this and other forums, on costs of sites some local to Scarbororugh,
I said I will not be pushed/ bullied into using sites in Scarborough nor will I stay in the town anymore. Incidentally i only used Scarborough in the winter, I never stayed more than one two nights in one place, never left rubbish, never put out awnings chairs BB’s etc and always moved during the day to return at night and as far as I am aware caused not problems apart from being seen there parked in an unused parking spot (I certainly believe that I was trying to put the residents perspective to the fore and still trying to pursue my interests of travelling and visiting interesting and nice places) sorry shame on me. I also spent money on dining and supplies, who wants to go away and sit in the van all day and night, not me I am out and about often spending in the area, no it wont break any banks, but will definitely add to someone’s till receipt in another area.......
I said I believe I sometimes see things from other people’s perspective, but I am not even going to attempt persuading you of this as I already know you will not accept it, that is your prerogative, either way it makes little difference to me now. Unfortunately your acceptance of me isn’t very high on my list of priorities, sorry…..

reading the tripe that comes from the posters on the local rag tells me also that their are a good number of people who don't want us there-so I am happy not to go, there are plenty of places much nice and friendlier for us to visit.
While we are on the here, I also think that your style of writing is arrogant, rude often aggressive and sometimes VILE, BUT not always, I think I read once a post were you didn’t actually attack or personally insult someone, I think??
However you do attack people often for having a different opinion to yourself..and then complain they are either thick, ignorant or vindictively harassing you on every post when they bite back etc.
I will add lastly that this is in response to your attack on the other thread and I am assuming this thread is a another ploy of yours to draw others into converting to your preaching’s.

Bless you and may all your troubles be small ones and remember You are still loved. No matter what……:bow:

al

I'll just remind everyone what you said!

"I'm still happy to not spend fuel and definitely not any time or money visiting a place or area that doesn't want my custom, unless I'm happy to be bullied into using an over priced campsite belonging to a fat greedy councilor.
i don't know about my comments being racist, but it is probably fat councillor-ist."


Now you're saying that you didn't really mean that they were fat, just fat cats. Yes, we all believe you I'm sure!

This was an intemperate and hateful rant by someone who has a conspiracy theory running riot in his or her mind. The problem arose because of complaints from councillors' constituents, not from owners of camp sites who couldn't give a toss about a few motorhomes staying in the town centre on public roads.

And you're not alone on here with this kind of view, We've just had someone who was moved on for wild camping in a National Park. A helpful bobby directed them to a local site but of course the site just has to be owned by one of his relatives doesn't it? Ye gods!

The only evidence that this is a huge conspiracy by campsite owners and councillors who are in their pockets is in your mind! And your comment about being bullied into 'over-priced camp sites' is another indication of your total unreasonableness. Who is bullying you to go on to sites? Do please let me know. Which sites are over-priced and how do their prices compare to others?

I'll tell you a little bit about business, which includes camp-sites. If your prices are too much and are more than the competition, you won't get any customers. So what defines 'over-priced? As far as I can see over-priced is just a price that you don't want to pay.
 
I'll just remind everyone what you said!

"I'm still happy to not spend fuel and definitely not any time or money visiting a place or area that doesn't want my custom, unless I'm happy to be bullied into using an over priced campsite belonging to a fat greedy councilor.
i don't know about my comments being racist, but it is probably fat councillor-ist."


Now you're saying that you didn't really mean that they were fat, just fat cats. Yes, we all believe you I'm sure!

This was an intemperate and hateful rant by someone who has a conspiracy theory running riot in his or her mind. The problem arose because of complaints from councillors' constituents, not from owners of camp sites who couldn't give a toss about a few motorhomes staying in the town centre on public roads.

And you're not alone on here with this kind of view, We've just had someone who was moved on for wild camping in a National Park. A helpful bobby directed them to a local site but of course the site just has to be owned by one of his relatives doesn't it? Ye gods!

The only evidence that this is a huge conspiracy by campsite owners and councillors who are in their pockets is in your mind! And your comment about being bullied into 'over-priced camp sites' is another indication of your total unreasonableness. Who is bullying you to go on to sites? Do please let me know. Which sites are over-priced and how do their prices compare to others?

I'll tell you a little bit about business, which includes camp-sites. If your prices are too much and are more than the competition, you won't get any customers. So what defines 'over-priced? As far as I can see over-priced is just a price that you don't want to pay.

:sleep-027::sleep-027:
 
:sleep-027::sleep-027:

The usual answer from someone who has no rational argument to support his/her case.

By the way, can some one tell me which Scarborough councillors own camp-sites, how many there are and how many other councillors there are of all the different political parties? Can they also show us minutes of any meetings, which are all in the public domain, where the issue of camp-site owners recusing themselves from the debates is mentioned.

Let's put and end to these people who think that, if they get a parking ticket it's because the warden's auntie owns a car park, or if a policeman shows an illegally parked 'van to a camp site it must belong to a relative.

It's these kind of appalling, untrue and in some case, slanderous allegations that will lower our esteem in the eyes of the residents of the towns in question, much more than the illegal parking itself.
 
I think you'll find that car parking on private land, not land under the control of the local authority, which is what a supermarket car park is, is not monitored by local authority planning officers.

Hi John

We were parked in a field well away from anywhere in a rural location in the Durham/Northumberland dales with the permission of the land owner. No one could see us from any road. The landowner even laid us a drinking water supply to the site from his field supply. A planning officer made a number of visits to this site, noting its use when there was no one there. He did this during working hours but also at night and weekends. After gathering the evidence that the place had been used for camping and caravaning, he made a visit while we were there and spoke to us. He then went to the landowner and told her she was breaking the law and if we were not off that land the next day he would procesute and put a paragraph 13 order on the land preventing it from being used again for a rally.

Local authorities can, however, apply for an order under paragraph 13 of the 1960 Act withdrawing the exemptions provided by certificates from a site. The effect of a paragraph 13 order would be to require a site licence or planning permission to be sought for the use of the site as a caravan site.

The landowner came down and hassled us to leave ASAP. It was because of this action I began to study the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and get involved with caravan exemptions.

When I was involved with ACCEO in the early 1980s it was common to see paragraphs in their newsletter informing exempted groups of land that has paragraph 13 orders recently imposed on them.

So yes planning officers do take an interest in the use of private land and they will take action.

I agree with the definition of parking and not camping myself. But that is a Spanish law it has no bearing on the UK. I only wish it did.

John
 
be careful Northener

So what's your opinion on a comment such as this on a public forum?

"I'm still happy to not spend fuel and definitely not any time or money visiting a place or area that doesn't want my custom, unless I'm happy to be bullied into using an over priced campsite belonging to a fat greedy councilor.
i don't know about my comments being racist, but it is probably fat councillor-ist."

And how do you think the councillors of Scarborough would react to such an accusation? And do you think that it would raise or lower the overall acceptance of motorhomers? I can just imagine the fun if this was picked up by the local newspaper!
 
The 1960 Act is certainly outdated and overdue for reform - can't see it happening any time soon though.

AndyC

Hi Andy

I have an officer from Natural England say to me The 1960 Act is outdated and overdue for reform. He then went on to say that it would not be altered in the foreseeable future due to the cost of drafting new regulations.

We are all agreed that the Act is outdated but we are stuck with it. Some planning officers treat it in a relaxed manner other will stick by the letter of the Act. Some officers of Natural England have even tried to enhance the act with their own interpretations aided by the big clubs.

John
 
So what's your opinion on a comment such as this on a public forum?

"I'm still happy to not spend fuel and definitely not any time or money visiting a place or area that doesn't want my custom, unless I'm happy to be bullied into using an over priced campsite belonging to a fat greedy councilor.
i don't know about my comments being racist, but it is probably fat councillor-ist."

And how do you think the councillors of Scarborough would react to such an accusation? And do you think that it would raise or lower the overall acceptance of motorhomers? I can just imagine the fun if this was picked up by the local newspaper!

Please read the forum rules.

Forum Rules said:
Ad Hominem

Ad Hominem comments/personal attacks towards anyone - staff, forum member, or a visitor who is likely to view it on the forums - is subject to the message being deleted and action taken against the user, regardless of how pertinent or thoughtful the rest of the message might be.
 
You think it is ok for one member to state that another members opinion is "a conspiracy theory running riot in his or her mind." ?
 
You think it is ok for one member to state that another members opinion is "a conspiracy theory running riot in his or her mind." ?

I suspect that, because his argument is feeble, he feels obliged to overstate his case rather forcefully. :lol-053:

My original (campsite owner related to bobbies) comment was a throwaway tease at previous paranoia. I was surprised that Northerner failed to see that, but I guess he is perhaps not the most subtle of posters. I was not bothered by his post, just saddened that he missed the reference. So it goes. :cheers:
 
I think that after 14 pages this thread has exhausted most of the different opinions related to the original subject and now simply relies on exchanges of personal abuse to keep it running.

Dezi :pc:
 

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top