Another one lost

Councils almost invariably tell us that they need restrictions, height barriers, off street parking order, TROs and so on because of a minority of us who overstay our welcome.

A goodly number of motorhomers here say this too. “If it wasn't for a minority of us who flout the rules then councils wouldn't have to bring in these expensive and draconian measures”. We admit we are at fault. With that attitude then councils will continue their merry way unopposed. Easy.

If councils want us to limit our stays to one night, or two, or a week or whatever, then the councils should say so. An inexpensive sign is all that's needed. And then deal with the minority who flout these, written, rules.

Right now we expect motorhomers to obey unwritten rules (which can be whatever anybody says they are and nobody else can argue because they're unwritten) and on the other hand we don't expect councils to obey legislation – in this case unlawful discrimination against a minority with protected characteristics even when the legislation is supported by the courts.

Who guards the guardians? If no one challenges a council when the council acts unlawfully then it will continue to act unlawfuly.

Banning all of us to control a minority reminds me of those inadequate teachers who say to a class, “it's only a few of you talking, but you're all going to stay in after school tonight.” Now we have inadequate councils who don't think beyond controlling a minority by punishing the entirety - or who think that's perfectly acceptable.

I knew collective punishment was wrong when I was seven and I know it's still wrong now when I'm seventy (and a few more).
 
maureenandtom said:
We have the ammunition to fight council decisions like this one. As a travelling community we have no appetite for a fight – but if we had it, then we have at least one good legal precedent for removal of height barriers.

The latest has recently been published – three months ago. https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2020/...s-the-right-to-roam-of-romany-and-travellers/
View attachment 80720
The appeal was against an injuction forbidding our sort of parking, not a height barrier, but the appeal was upheld and the principle of keeping sites obstruction free remains. The council must have reached a considered view that there is no other solution. And I'd ask - a solution to what particular problem? Simple dislike is not a problem worthy of a height barrier.

We have an ingrained prejudice which makes us not want to be associated with Travellers but we have the same rights and, if we had the appetite, there is a useful judgment and compelling argument in the Lord Justice Coulson's pronouncement.
Click to expand...
This directive overlooks one fundamental point Tom and one which indirectly and directly affects us all. The travelling community namely gypsy types visit land on their terms and Don’t enter contracts,,,( a reason council don’t pursue fines or enforcement think of the Leicestershire case and nick freeman) the fact no contract can be established under current laws enforcement measures such as height barriers become no more than academic. But affects the rest of us .

I am one that , challenged Blackpool council a few years ago , and part of my success was challenging the signage, unfair contracts act 1977 played a part too.....so a villain within the ranks....not really because people are happy to make sweeping statements without being aware of the facts ,,,they are generally the first people to bleat and complain we are all being treated the same.

That signage still,incorrect still exists today the unwary still given penalty tickets, how much revenue has that raised I wonder.? Tom makes a fundamental point we are expected to comply with rules and regulations and most of us do. So it isn’t the biggest ask in the world that signage gives clear ,precise and legally enforceable instruction is it ? If councils fail in that then leave themselves open to scrutiny by those it effects
 
maureenandtom said:
Councils almost invariably tell us that they need restrictions, height barriers, off street parking order, TROs and so on because of a minority of us who overstay our welcome.

A goodly number of motorhomers here say this too. “If it wasn't for a minority of us who flout the rules then councils wouldn't have to bring in these expensive and draconian measures”. We admit we are at fault. With that attitude then councils will continue their merry way unopposed. Easy.

If councils want us to limit our stays to one night, or two, or a week or whatever, then the councils should say so. An inexpensive sign is all that's needed. And then deal with the minority who flout these, written, rules.

Right now we expect motorhomers to obey unwritten rules (which can be whatever anybody says they are and nobody else can argue because they're unwritten) and on the other hand we don't expect councils to obey legislation – in this case unlawful discrimination against a minority with protected characteristics even when the legislation is supported by the courts.

Who guards the guardians? If no one challenges a council when the council acts unlawfully then it will continue to act unlawfuly.

Banning all of us to control a minority reminds me of those inadequate teachers who say to a class, “it's only a few of you talking, but you're all going to stay in after school tonight.” Now we have inadequate councils who don't think beyond controlling a minority by punishing the entirety - or who think that's perfectly acceptable.

I knew collective punishment was wrong when I was seven and I know it's still wrong now when I'm seventy (and a few more).
Click to expand...

Pretty well sums it up for me.
We are easy targets plain and simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top