Sometimes we're our own worst enemies!

[maureenandtom]

Quite happy for you to reproduce the quote in full - and just in case anybody missed it, I have reproduced it again. I edited simply for clarity - it would be daft to do it for any other reason since the original is here for everyone to see (three times now!). You took issue with somebody who said that the majority of French aires are free. In response I did not jump down your throat but simply referred you, politely, to a website that would demonstrate that in reality they are. Again, I ask - why are you getting so uptight about it?

No John, you edited it to distort it.

My original meaning was perfectly clear to any reasonable person.

Through misrepresentation you changed the meaning.

This is not the first time you have done so; you rely on people not referring back to the original quotation. By this means you re-write the history of a subject to your own satisfaction.

Reasonable debate is one thing - deliberate distortion is another. No quotation is safe if it can be changed unchallenged.

You, Sir, a hypcocrite of the worst kind. A thief only takes your belongings. A liar can hang you.

 

[AndyC]

The planning department might have cause to take an interest if the issue was raised by, for example local residents, or even local campsite owners.

I quite agree that, in general, the local planning office would not be interested in, or even be aware of, a few motorhomes staying occasionally in a supermarket car park, however in a popular area you could well have a situation where there were several motorhomes staying on a regular basis.

AndyC

 

[John H]

No John, you edited it to distort it.

My original meaning was perfectly clear to any reasonable person.

Through misrepresentation you changed the meaning.

This is not the first time you have done so; you rely on people not referring back to the original quotation. By this means you re-write the history of a subject to your own satisfaction.

Reasonable debate is one thing - deliberate distortion is another. No quotation is safe if it can be changed unchallenged.

You, Sir, a hypcocrite of the worst kind. A thief only takes your belongings. A liar can hang you.

Ok, this has gone far enough. For reasons known only to you, one of your regular tactics is to try to make me angry. You have called what I said rubbish; you have called me a liar and a hypocrite. I refuse to be made angry by someone who simply does not like the truth. Your tactic has never worked before and it won't work now. Have a nice day.

 

[AndyC]

The problem is that, when a car park owner permits motorhomes (vehicles adapted or constructed for human habitation) to stay overnight (used for human habitation) the car park becomes, in law, a caravan site.

You may argue that the law is outdated, wrong, or stupid, and I would agree with you. It is however the current law.

AndyC

 

[maureenandtom]

Truly, I have never thought that was what I was doing. I've always thought I was open - and maybe a bit too open for my own good sometimes. Mostly it is Tom writing - and that's me right now.

It was probably a mistake having the name Maureenandtom but I'll have a look at our profile and see about putting something informative in there. Have you thought of looking at our introductory post. I seem to remember that was pretty full of information. I'll have to have a look at it myself now.

I never snipe from the undergrowth. I stand in the open and say, I hope with clarity, what I mean; I'm aware that not all I write is palatable to all but I have faced worse fears than disapproval and I don't fear being quoted and remembered.


Tom

Edit: I see that the Introductory Posts section goes back to almost exactly the date we joined - July 2007. By some unfortunate coincidence our own introductory post isn't there - unless you can find it. If I can amend the profile, I will. I may even write another introduction.

 

[John H]

The problem is that, when a car park owner permits motorhomes (vehicles adapted or constructed for human habitation) to stay overnight (used for human habitation) the car park becomes, in law, a caravan site.

You may argue that the law is outdated, wrong, or stupid, and I would agree with you. It is however the current law.

AndyC

I've never heard that interpretation of the law before. Can you provide the relevant clause?

 

[Tbear]

Do we really give a stuff about the letter of the law as nobody is harmed, we get a place to overnight and the shop gets a few quid out of us.

Richard

 

[AndyC]

I've never heard that interpretation of the law before. Can you provide the relevant clause?

Part 1 Section 1 para (4): "In this Part of this Act the expression “caravan site” means land on which a caravan is stationed for the purposes of human habitation and land which is used in conjunction with land on which a caravan is so stationed."

AndyC

 

[AndyC]

Do we really give a stuff about the letter of the law as nobody is harmed, we get a place to overnight and the shop gets a few quid out of us.

Richard

I'm looking at if from the point of view of a supermarket's legal department - they might "give a stuff about the letter of the law."

Personally I'd be quite happy to ask a supermarket manager if I could stay in their car park, I wouldn't be worrying about their possible contravention of site licencing requirements.

However because of the current law I don't think there is any future in asking for supermarkets to officially allow motorhome overnight stays.

AndyC

 

[John H]

Part 1 Section 1 para (4): "In this Part of this Act the expression “caravan site” means land on which a caravan is stationed for the purposes of human habitation and land which is used in conjunction with land on which a caravan is so stationed."

AndyC

Thank you.

It seems to me that, reading between the lines, the law did not intend to ban the kind of thing we are talking about but that technically we could be bound up in it. I talked about unintended consequences before and I think this would come under that heading. Otherwise, every time a pub landlord allowed us to stay he could be prosecuted - and the few supermarkets that have allowed us to would also be liable to prosecution.

It also seems to me that any supermarket chain that applied for exemption could corner the market in motorhome trade!

 

[AndyC]

Thank you.

It seems to me that, reading between the lines, the law did not intend to ban the kind of thing we are talking about but that technically we could be bound up in it. I talked about unintended consequences before and I think this would come under that heading. Otherwise, every time a pub landlord allowed us to stay he could be prosecuted - and the few supermarkets that have allowed us to would also be liable to prosecution.

Unlikely to face prosecution, at least in the first instance. More likely to get a bit of friendly advice from the planning office, then if that's not heeded, an enforcement notice, if that wasn't complied with it would eventually go to court.

The 1960 Act is certainly outdated and overdue for reform - can't see it happening any time soon though.

AndyC

 

[paganplasma]

Wild camping

Hi,I have noted the comments about free parking in British towns and i have to say, when we go about in our motor home we try and find a pub with a large car park and have a deal with them because we tow a car trailer and town car parks have anti traveller bars on them,in France we find its better because the gypsy community know their place and behave otherwise the police deal with them aggressively ,even the large super markets let campers over night in their vans ,it seems everything in Britain is back to front we just do not see what works well in other country's and apply it here.We go abroad and spend a lot of money on fuel, water and food because it is easy to enjoy our holiday using the facilities that are provided by the towns,villages and A roads its only a few Euro ,but we cannot do the same here because they do not exist ,only on camp sites so until Britain wake up and catch up with Europe we will always have this problem i think .:wave

 

[AndyC]

Once again not my area of expertise but I don't think that a public house can legally be considered a dwellinghouse. They are certainly distinct entities in planning terms.

AndyC

 

[John H]

Unlikely to face prosecution, at least in the first instance. More likely to get a bit of friendly advice from the planning office, then if that's not heeded, an enforcement notice, if that wasn't complied with it would eventually go to court.

The 1960 Act is certainly outdated and overdue for reform - can't see it happening any time soon though.

AndyC

Unless you are aware of information to the contrary, I suggest that my comment about unintended consequences holds sway here and that not even a friendly warning would be issued. Yes, the law is outdated but if it is not being enforced against us maybe we should not push for a change because changes don't always move in the direction you want them to!

 

[Tbear]

I'm looking at if from the point of view of a supermarket's legal department - they might "give a stuff about the letter of the law."

Personally I'd be quite happy to ask a supermarket manager if I could stay in their car park, I wouldn't be worrying about their possible contravention of site licencing requirements.

However because of the current law I don't think there is any future in asking for supermarkets to officially allow motorhome overnight stays.

AndyC

Is the council really going to take asda to court over a van parked in a carpark doing no harm when they are spending thousands removing "travellers" from their parks and beauty spots

 

[AndyC]

Is the council really going to take asda to court over a van parked in a carpark doing no harm when they are spending thousands removing "travellers" from their parks and beauty spots

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

 

[AndyC]

Unless you are aware of information to the contrary, I suggest that my comment about unintended consequences holds sway here and that not even a friendly warning would be issued. Yes, the law is outdated but if it is not being enforced against us maybe we should not push for a change because changes don't always move in the direction you want them to!

Sadly I tend to agree John, I would very much like to see the law changed but I can guess which organisations would have the most input into any revisions and neither of them want to see motorhome stopovers or 'aires' deveoped in the UK.

AndyC

 

[Tbear]

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

Corporate lawyers of a major international companies have more to worry about than me having an hours kip in one of their supermarket carparks. More chance of them thanking me for discouraging the local yobs from misbehaving on their property:lol-053:

 

[Channa]

You just don't get it do yo? It's nothing to do with a free market. Camp sites have lots of competition from other sites, from club sites and CLs and no one is protecting them from that or wants to. This is about denigrating a site owner because he objected to the council allowing free overnight parking for motorhomes on a large car park near his site. As a businessman who pays a lot of money to the council for the privilege of running his business he has the right to feel aggrieved if the council cuts his feet from under him by allowing such parking. Can't you understand that? It's nothing to do with fair competition. How can anyone compete with a local authority giving something away for nothing? I wish you'd answer that.

To sum up, I'm for for competition but it must be fair. Just as you have the right to protest if you think that you are being treated unfairly, so has the camp site owner and he shouldn't be branded by some of the appalling epithets that have been hurled at him on this site.

And to be honest, your Antarctica analogy just shows the depth of your argument. This site owner has been there for years and opened long before this started. And if you really believe that nothing should be able to interfere with the free market you are very deluded. Haven't you heard of the Monopolies Commission? An unregulated free market would be a disaster with the biggest growing bigger until they had total control of the market. Then there really would be no competition.

last time I replied to one of your posts you suggested I was attacking you, and yet in your world telling people they don't get it and bloody hell etc seems fair game.

You pupport to be a businessman, and in that capacity since when has business been fair.?

For what it is worth, I totally understand the point you are making and perhaps trying to provoke a little empathy within people

For better or worse I have found myself back in the licenced trade caretaking a public house.

I. Can't realistically compete with witherspoons on price as an example , but I can do my best to offer a unique selling point......I.e interact with customers and ensure they feel their custom is valued that they want to come back.

Retention is a must in my world.



The point I am trying to make, without arguing is life is rarely a level playing field, so you maximise what you have got.

I understand why a campsite owner becomes frustrated with the wildy lot considering investment
And returns on ..

I thiink or for me at least, it isn't really about saving a few quid, it is the ability to pretty much do as I want without interference.

If people choose to site their perogative , I don't knock it , but please don't berate my choice to remain self sufficient and choose not to stay on sites

Site owners naturally have their own Interests at heart, they have investment and need a return....but the bigger picture like in my work doesn't guarantee it and why should it?

Very few motorhomers in the grand scale seem to wild camp...therefore those that choose too in my book are in a minority, a minority that in real terms has minimal impact on the tourist economy
Channa

 

[Northerner]

last time I replied to one of your posts you suggested I was attacking you, and yet in your world telling people they don't get it and bloody hell etc seems fair game.

You pupport to be a businessman, and in that capacity since when has business been fair.?

For what it is worth, I totally understand the point you are making and perhaps trying to provoke a little empathy within people

For better or worse I have found myself back in the licenced trade caretaking a public house.

I. Can't realistically compete with witherspoons on price as an example , but I can do my best to offer a unique selling point......I.e interact with customers and ensure they feel their custom is valued that they want to come back.

Retention is a must in my world.



The point I am trying to make, without arguing is life is rarely a level playing field, so you maximise what you have got.

I understand why a campsite owner becomes frustrated with the wildy lot considering investment
And returns on ..

I thiink or for me at least, it isn't really about saving a few quid, it is the ability to pretty much do as I want without interference.

If people choose to site their perogative , I don't knock it , but please don't berate my choice to remain self sufficient and choose not to stay on sites

Site owners naturally have their own Interests at heart, they have investment and need a return....but the bigger picture like in my work doesn't guarantee it and why should it?

Very few motorhomers in the grand scale seem to wild camp...therefore those that choose too in my book are in a minority, a minority that in real terms has minimal impact on the tourist economy
Channa

Where have I ever berated anyone's wish not to stay on sites? I do it myself. This discussion was about one thing, the inability of members on this site to see things from the perspective of others. We have a site owner who objects because the council allowed free motorhome camping on a large car park near his site. He raised an objection and was absolutely insulted on here for his temerity. The post of mine above came after a frustrating debate with another member who can't seem to understand that this man has the right to object and probably a good reason.

Trying to compete with a service that your council offers for nothing isn't fair competition! How would you feel if your council set up a drop-in centre next to your pub and served free beer? Would you call that competition? I'd call it damn unfair that the council is using my rates to cut the feet from under me. And this is why I started this thread, which is just about members of this site who think that all that matters is their convenience and that anyone who doesn't allow them to park anywhere at all is a fat greedy councillor or has a relative with a campsite.

Finally, I don't 'pupport' to be a businessman, I am, and in one of the most competitive trades there is and we've survived when most of our competitors have gone under. And we do that by trying harder and by being pro-active, so yes, I know all about competition, and I'll be happy to PM you with my business details and proof but I don't wish it to be public.

Edited to say: This was your last line:

'Very few motorhomers in the grand scale seem to wild camp...therefore those that choose too in my book are in a minority, a minority that in real terms has minimal impact on the tourist economy'

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!