Sometimes we're our own worst enemies!

[Northerner]

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." ?

Well, at the risk of being banned I do believe that the following comment shows all the evidence of a conspiracy theory, and of course conspiracy theories are only in the mind, they're not in your foot or up your nose.

"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 I ask you again. Do you think that this is a suitable comment to publish in a public forum? Can you just imagine the headlines in the Scarborough Daily Whatsit?

"Motorhomers accuse Scarborough councillors of corruption, being fat, greedy and of trying to bully them onto camp sites that they own". That would really help our cause!

And I really do think that you should read the post to which I responded! Needless to say I haven't moaned about it, or complained because it's a forum and I'm not some wimp who can't defend himself.

I find it odd that I can be mildly rude, and that's all it was, and in response to something much ruder I might add, and yet comments that are insulting, libellous and downright untrue are acceptable because it's just local councillors that are being traduced.

Finally, I admit that I am vigorous in debate and perhaps a touch arrogant! But it's my way and if I am rude it's usually in response to someone who deserves it, and in this case he or she did. If people are going to come on public forums spouting unsubstantiated rubbish that actually libels businessmen and councillors they should expect to be challenged.

 

[Northerner]

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:

Pretty odd of course that the post in question showed no hint of irony or humour, had no smilies or other emoticons (which you appear to like using on other occasions and even on the post above!) and appeared to be deadly serious. Now of course that you've been challenged on it there's a claim that it was a 'throw away tease'. Yes, of course it was!

And which part of my argument is feeble? Is it that Scarborough Council doesn't have a fat, greedy campsite owner who is behind all this? You ought to check the number of likes on my original post to see whether members think that my argument is feeble!

 

[maingate]

It is a fact that at least one Councillor owns a campsite.

Whether he is fat and/or greedy is subjective. It would depend on which Scarborough resident you spoke to.

 

[John H]

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.



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

Hi John

I suppose that there will always be jobsworths willing to use the law for things it was not intended to be used for. Do you think that large supermarkets would allow themselves to be intimidated in the same way - especially if they were not laying on water or anything else that could be construed as allowing camping?

 

[John H]

Pretty odd of course that the post in question showed no hint of irony or humour, had no smilies or other emoticons (which you appear to like using on other occasions and even on the post above!) and appeared to be deadly serious. Now of course that you've been challenged on it there's a claim that it was a 'throw away tease'. Yes, of course it was!

Well, as an ex-councillor who has - like all councillors - had to put up with this kind of thing, all I can say is it is par for the course - if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen - and I DID see the original statement as humourous (see my post which followed it). Further, Northerner, you cannot libel councillors in general and no specific councillor was libelled in any post on this thread. And finally, you seem to assume that no negative comments are to be allowed against business or councillors whereas the reality is that all groups are fair game. Any negative comment about a specific individual, however, needs to be considered very carefully - and that is where you get very near to the line (some would say, even cross it).

 

[Northerner]

It is a fact that at least one Councillor owns a campsite.

Whether he is fat and/or greedy is subjective. It would depend on which Scarborough resident you spoke to.

I attach a link to a list of all 49 Scarborough councillors. They are a typical mixed bunch and surprisingly, very few of them have businesses. I have patiently scoured through their declarations and interests and found out that you are, almost, correct. Out of the 49, one councillor has declared an interest in a camp site. None of the others have anything to do with sites whatsoever and only a tiny number could be described as even being in the tourist business.

However, the councillor with a campsite is Andrew Backhouse, who is not the slightest bit fat by the way! Technically it isn't even his as it's owned by his parents, but I'll concede that it might as well be his. But lets have the best bit shall we?

His campsite is called Haven Campsite and is in a place called Burniston, north of Scarborough. I also attach a link to that. The link will show, as will a quick glance on Google Earth, that it is a small family-owned park comprising 52 static holiday caravans. The site doesn't even take tourers or motorhomes. So much for fat greedy councillors bullying people on to their camp sites.

And this is typical of how these conspiracy theories develop and grow. I've already been told that there are thousands of references to these councillors who own camp sites but it is utter tosh!

So in fact there is not one Scarborough councillor who will benefit in the slightest by motorhomers being bullied off the streets and into camp sites. As if we would anyway!

So can we now please accept, that the 49 councillors of Scarborough are actually acting on behalf of their constituents and not some fat and greedy camp site owner who is dominating the council and somehow overruling the Labour, independent, Green Party and Lib Dem members?

Your Councillors

The Haven Caravan Park

 

[maureenandtom]

We knew all this. All of it was well documented in the Scarborough Traders thread. All the councillors, all the business interests, Cllr Backhouse's lack of involvement.

Below is what I posted when it came up in that thread - also in response to a "Northerner" post.

No one has yet attempted to give an explanation of why we are so keen on Aires in France - and even keen when other councils in Britain take steps to try trials with Aires - but when it comes to Scarborough people are virulently against their trial. I know about the price. People don't like the proposed charge of £10 - which the council were to look at again and which may already have come down and we don't yet know about it. Or it may have stayed the same. How many of us tried to influence the price? I know some did. I know I did.

A little research shows that more and more Aires are charging, even in France no matter how much some will wriggle about it; the fact is that they are - my own research shows that touristy areas are increasingly making a charge. There's little point in saying much of the rest of France is still free; it's only the coastal popular spots. The coastal spots are popular because that's where people want to be. That's why there's a charge.

I can understand that some do not want Aires in any event but I can't believe that even those who don't want them for themselves would try to deny them to others. I don't want campsites but I don't want to deny them to others.

There are some who believe that we shouldn't try to influence councils; we should let sleeping dogs lie; that if we try to influence them then we may end up with something worse than we have right now. At our age we don't like change. But that can't be the case with Scarborough; the motorhome problem was being discussed in response to repeated loud insistence from Scarborough residents and this was one time when we must make our voice known. Change was going to come with or without our influence.

Change is going to come with or without our influence. Everywhere.

Notherner's right. There is, however, at least one interested member and he has declared his interest and, if he was influential, he was influential behind the scenes. If he was! He would have been the cabinet member responsible for this but his duties have been taken over by another councillor. Councillor Penny somebody or other.

And we know what has moved the council. It is well documented. It began with the title of this thread - "Scarborough Traders Complain" and it was followed up by a largish number of letters - on more than one occasion - from residents in Scarborough. The council are responding to public opinion in the town. Those who think it is inadvisable to stir up the council would be best asking local residents to cease doing so. All this is well documented here but, unfortunately, spread over several different threads.

We are lucky that they are taking the continental approach. Yes, they have got the price wrong. They, I guess, are concentrating on control and enforcement; the stick rather than the carrot of providing services to attract us. We should not be castigating them; we should be encouraging them to continue to get things right.

All this whinging isn't very productive. Yes, we want Aires. No we don't want Aires. Yes, we do if they're free. Not very productive.

In my opinion, they are moving the right way but they have the pricing wrong. Off the top of my head, I don't want to go looking up things we should know, Blackpool have got the price wrong and local press is still getting complaints - it was in a thread here; Swanage (? something about £20?), Dawlish Warren began well but they got frightened by the numbers and withdrew the facility? All moving the right way but getting something so simple so wrong. The price.

Sometimes I think we just like whingeing.

 

[Northerner]

We knew all this. All of it was well documented in the Scarborough Traders thread. All the councillors, all the business interests, Cllr Backhouse's lack of involvement.

Below is what I posted when it came up in that thread - also in response to a "Northerner" post.

No one has yet attempted to give an explanation of why we are so keen on Aires in France - and even keen when other councils in Britain take steps to try trials with Aires - but when it comes to Scarborough people are virulently against their trial. I know about the price. People don't like the proposed charge of £10 - which the council were to look at again and which may already have come down and we don't yet know about it. Or it may have stayed the same. How many of us tried to influence the price? I know some did. I know I did.

A little research shows that more and more Aires are charging, even in France no matter how much some will wriggle about it; the fact is that they are - my own research shows that touristy areas are increasingly making a charge. There's little point in saying much of the rest of France is still free; it's only the coastal popular spots. The coastal spots are popular because that's where people want to be. That's why there's a charge.

I can understand that some do not want Aires in any event but I can't believe that even those who don't want them for themselves would try to deny them to others. I don't want campsites but I don't want to deny them to others.

There are some who believe that we shouldn't try to influence councils; we should let sleeping dogs lie; that if we try to influence them then we may end up with something worse than we have right now. At our age we don't like change. But that can't be the case with Scarborough; the motorhome problem was being discussed in response to repeated loud insistence from Scarborough residents and this was one time when we must make our voice known. Change was going to come with or without our influence.

Change is going to come with or without our influence. Everywhere.

Thank you for that. I hadn't really gone too deep into that thread as, believe it or not, there are very few threads that actually interest me. However, I would question the statement "We knew all this. All of it was well documented in the Scarborough Traders thread." You are correct obviously, but it appears that lots of people didn't know it as, since then, we still get them banging on about fat, greedy councillors who own camp sites.

Anyway, it's a pleasure to read a post from someone who's pragmatic about this and isn't utterly convinced that the actions of Scarborough Council are as a result of corruption and greed from some mythical camp site owners.

 

[John H]

I personally cannot see supermarkets being interested at all as what are we actually offering them ?
As stated by many we are a tiny minority of a small group of the population and as some will be happy to stay with no water or facilities ,others will start asking for water and places to dump waste then others will want to leave rubbish behind and suddenly the supermarket has to clear up and commit staffing resources to an unprofitable nuisance !

Hi

The simple answer to that is that we are offering them potential custom when the alternative is an empty car park. Its a win-win situation and if the amount of rubbish to clear up significantly increases their workload they would be free to revert to an overnight ban or to impose a small charge to cover the extra cost. Yes there will always be some who abuse any system but do you hear of resorts banning picnickers because many of them leave piles of rubbish behind them? I can imagine any supermarket chain that opens itself to us cornering the market in motorhome custom (and I don't just mean while we are in motorhomes either).

 

[dodge2transit]

iv got at page 12 and had to stop there is to much reading to do and is making me dizy lol and getting even more confused to why it gone the way it has so ,replying to post 1/
i do feel it was a litle unfair that the chap that messed up was pulled up again. whats done is done , i feel management should of gone in and done a edit on the post and changed a few things after it was established a cock up was made, 2nd i posted on that thread and made it very very clear if we stuck together we could achieve lodes but it was pointed out to me that we dont now how to stand as one.
may be may be not until someone trys we will never know, hay pople.
as for car parks well im easy on this. its a car park not a camp site. its pointed out on post 1, that travelers are to blame, well hmm tuff one to say they are or are not realy as every time i see travelers gypsy there in forests or commen or waist land , sorry iv never seen them in large numbers in car parks , thats the truth. however i suppose you could be right about the councils be afraid they will be hit by them if we park , fair post.
comes down to cost to clean up and local opposition to them.
however it defantly can be blamed on some of them campers that abuse the car parks by leaving liter and so forth. so it stems to that, us, you, me, him, her, that dog. how we behave and represent what we do and how we do it. i will try and clean up behind others as i may wish to come back to the car park again and yes it's for me the reason. and i do feed the local economy i visit even if its £10 or 50.
may be a solution to the problem of parking could be if you stay pay , or if you stay only 5 van in at one time , or be gone by 7 am or pay a fine. but as no one will gather and form a org or Union or a league it will never be put to the councils sao it will never be fixed.
so thats my pennies worth and i stand by every thing i put in the offending thread.

 

[sean rua]

To all who may be interested in the relevant law:

There are at least two posters on this thread who know the relevant law. These are

Mr John Thompson

and

AndyC.


As several have intimated, the law is complex and borders on the ridiculous in places, but it is still the law.

--
@ JohnH:

Whatever about anything else , John,
I am sad to say that you are wrong about the sleeping issue.
If "they" don't want you sleeping overnight, "they" can find umpteen laws that forbid it.

In my opinion, much of it is to do with the ancient fear of darkness.
Generally, modern man is as frightened of the dark as were his/our ancestors who faced nightly predators such as wolves.
Nowadays we have the fear of criminals who "come like thieves in the night".

This is why most civilisations brought in street lighting. "Public Safety" was the motivation.
It's also why there are laws against "loitering" etc, and why it is technically illegal to kip on a park bench at night or even in a shop doorway.

Now, to be a little more specific:
we were told at Dale Farm, by the powers-that-be, that it would be illegal for even one person to sleep on the site with nothing more than a sleeping bag! This is privately-owned land we're talking about.
How can you keep saying there are no laws against sleeping overnight?

When trying to take the matter further, we were told by an irate person who farmed locally, that she was not even allowed to abide in a shepherd's hut on some rented land, even though this would have made her farming life so much easier. :rolleyes2:

Despite this obvious nonsense of a law, she took the view that we, the travellers, should NOT be allowed any "preferential treatment" ( her words) by being allowed to stay on our land.
In reasonable conversation, she agreed that the law was ridiculous, but she took the hard-line, party-line,
that " the law is the law" and must be obeyed at all times by all, however silly.

I note, with an interested smile, that several on here do not believe in such a religious adherence to the very letter.
In fact, on other threads, we have had advice offered regarding carrying bolt-croppers, various weaponry, etc etc, the use of which would be in total breach and contravention under UK law.

The truth is that, every now and again, the the large developers of private property have to get the politicians and councillors to flex their muscles, and so "test cases" are brought ( despite the huge cost of such endeavours).

The whole point of these is to reinforce the principles of private property and help clear the way for the Big Boys to carry out their plans when they wish.

And, finally, that is one major reason why the supermarket parking idea will notbecome law.
On the other hand, it may become a temporary fact of life, which will be tolerated so far until, it is deemed time to act, but all the time, it will never quite be legal.
Then, with all the relevant paperwork in place, the authorities are able to swiftly removed anything from their way, when the time is right.

I'm sure AndyC will be able to confirm that, even though overnighting in motorhomes is tolerated
at the Park and Ride, New Dover Road, Canterbury, there is, in fact, a TRO prohibiting this. In other words, it's just a law waiting to be enforced.
One of many technical issues, imo, that are disregarded for reasons of commonsense, BUT, can be quickly enforced by the rulers, if and when they feel the need.


sean rua.


"Ignorance is treatable; Arrogance is Terminal."

 

[John H]

Whatever about anything else , John,
I am sad to say that you are wrong about the sleeping issue.
If "they" don't want you sleeping overnight, "they" can find umpteen laws that forbid it.

Now, to be a little more specific:
we were told at Dale Farm, by the powers-that-be, that it would be illegal for even one person to sleep on the site with nothing more than a sleeping bag! This is privately-owned land we're talking about.
How can you keep saying there are no laws against sleeping overnight?

When trying to take the matter further, we were told by an irate person who farmed locally, that she was not even allowed to abide in a shepherd's hut on some rented land, even though this would have made her farming life so much easier. :rolleyes2:

Hi Sean

I was very specific in what I said - there is no law about sleeping in vehicles (and Andy C has also said the same thing in a previous post). I obviously don't know the details of the specific cases you quote but, from what I know of the general situation, the Dale Farm residents were guilty of not having the appropriate planning permission (for residence). They may have improved the site but it was the lack of planning permission that got them in the end. I do agree with you, however, that if the authorities are determined to get you then they will find a way. For example, if the police want to find something wrong with your vehicle then they will find it - none of us has a perfect vehicle! That is why, whenever I am approached by the police or other authority figure I am always very polite and compliant. I have never been moved on in this country (once in Spain and once in Greece and on both ocassions the mayor/police advised me of an alternative spot where it would be suitable to stop for the night).

PS just re-read the above and I did not mean to imply that you weren't polite to the police!

 

[wolly]

I believe that I have tried to put up a rational, non-aggressive conversation with you and you still go on the attack (as you do with anyone who has a different opinion to yours). This will be the last time I enter into any dialogue with you on here as I hate wasting my time with someone who refuses to listen to any other point of view.

well said maingate

 

[sean rua]

Thank you for your reply, JohnH.

I regret to say that I have been "moved on" many times, so I'm going on what has actually happened, rather than any fine understanding of the intricacies of English law.
Your reply, btw, was perfectly polite as far as I can see, though I honestly think you're wrong about this sleeping thing. The point is that when we come on these modern day fora, the last thing I expect is
politeness and folks being reasonable, so when we find both of these, 'tis something of an unexpected bonus!
Thanks again.

Basically, I know from past experience that, on the pretext of " we have received a complaint from a member of the public"
the police and other agencies can and will move folk on, even if those people have no vehicle at all.
On that premise alone, I cannot, for the life of me, see how having some sort of habitation or transport would do anything but make matters worse.
After all, I'd expect that the vast majority of serious criminals, who may be lurking with ill-intent, under cover of darkness, would be equipped with some sort of wheels in the modern world.
This is why the police stop a far greater percentage of motorists in the early hours of the morning , between three and four a.m., than they do at other times of the day ( my own calculations, that may, or, may not, be backed up by those with access to police records).

I'll leave it at this for now, as the thread is long enough already, imo. I don't want to prolong it by starting a pantomime of "oh, yes, it is/oh, no, it isn't." :lol-053:


sean rua.


"Ignorance is Treatable; Arrogance is terminal."

 

[John H]

Thank you for your reply, JohnH.

I regret to say that I have been "moved on" many times, so I'm going on what has actually happened, rather than any fine understanding of the intricacies of English law.
Your reply, btw, was perfectly polite as far as I can see, though I honestly think you're wrong about this sleeping thing. The point is that when we come on these modern day fora, the last thing I expect is
politeness and folks being reasonable, so when we find both of these, 'tis something of an unexpected bonus!
Thanks again.

Basically, I know from past experience that, on the pretext of " we have received a complaint from a member of the public"
the police and other agencies can and will move folk on, even if those people have no vehicle at all.
On that premise alone, I cannot, for the life of me, see how having some sort of habitation or transport would do anything but make matters worse.
After all, I'd expect that the vast majority of serious criminals, who may be lurking with ill-intent, under cover of darkness, would be equipped with some sort of wheels in the modern world.
This is why the police stop a far greater percentage of motorists in the early hours of the morning , between three and four a.m., than they do at other times of the day ( my own calculations, that may, or, may not, be backed up by those with access to police records).

I'll leave it at this for now, as the thread is long enough already, imo. I don't want to prolong it by starting a pantomime of "oh, yes, it is/oh, no, it isn't." :lol-053:


sean rua.


"Ignorance is Treatable; Arrogance is terminal."

Just to clarify, Sean, I was stating what the actual legal situation is but I agree with you that if the authorities are bent on a course of action they can find ways of approaching the situation "laterally". I appreciate that for someone being moved on the distinction may be a fine (and meaningless) one!

 

[AndyC]

I'm sure AndyC will be able to confirm that, even though overnighting in motorhomes is tolerated
at the Park and Ride, New Dover Road, Canterbury, there is, in fact, a TRO prohibiting this. In other words, it's just a law waiting to be enforced.
One of many technical issues, imo, that are disregarded for reasons of commonsense, BUT, can be quickly enforced by the rulers, if and when they feel the need.

That is the case at the Canterbury P&R but I have to say that it's rather unusual. Virtually all the other council operated car parks that I list as allowing overnight stays have no such TRO in place. Off the top of my head the only other one I can think of is Exeter where overnight stays are tolerated at the Matford P&R, no facilities like at Canterbury though and only one night is tolerated.

AndyC

 

[Canalsman]

... overnight stays are tolerated at the (Exeter) Matford P&R, no facilities like at Canterbury though and only one night is tolerated.

Added to the POIs

Thanks.

Chris

 

[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 uanyone 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!

If you re read my post, I clearly state I get the drift of your post, infact I used the word empathy , and I think that is your point? Empathy for campsite owners.
When I used the word berate, it was in the context I choose to wild camp not necessarily. For financial reasons,more. The flexibility it affords me
Channa