Wells on Sea...no go area!

maureenandtom

Full Member
Posts
1,197
Likes
1,808
What really annoyed us was that, at the coach park, there was actually an attendant who was there to raise the barrier for coaches.....I can understand that they had a nasty time in 2017, but there have been years since. A bit of discretion could be applied or an area allocated for high vehicles with pay to leave barriers. We have been in winter and no barriers in place, do travellers not come in winter??
That's interesting. Thank you. Is it North Norfolk County Council or Wells Town Council?
 

Deleted member 34243

Guest
Blimey I didn’t realise they were putting motorhomers in extermination camps
 

trevskoda

Full Member
Posts
25,111
Likes
30,029
Most but not all the travelers here behave, if they don't the other crowd with things that go BANG come round and sort things, no police involved.
 

FULL TIMER

Full Member
Posts
1,421
Likes
1,331
none as far as I remember, th
I wonder how many complaints, prosecutions and convictions there were on that occasion four years ago.
none if I remember correctly , the police bottled it and were nowhere to be seen and left the shop owners and landlords etc to get on with it , there were also several sexual assaults amongst all the other mayhem,
 

Rolyan57

Full Member
Posts
28
Likes
35
I've read the newspaper report and the locals must have had a dreadful time of it. Quarter of a million visitors in one go to a town with a normal population of less than 8000. In that Quarter of a Million visitors were at least 23 Traveller Caravans and at least 40 Travellers.

Without getting heated; what's the general view? The locals had a very rough time four years ago. Maybe the measures worked and there has been peace since. Does that justify the council breaking national law? Can we allow local authorities to decide for themselves what law to obey?

I have this feeling that we are a civilised society with rule of law. This council seems to have broken one of our fundamental laws. There is to be no discrimination on certain grounds - one of those grounds is race. Travellers, in law, are a protected ethnicity. It would be for a court to decide whether racial discrimination laws had been broken. I think they have been. Should the council be prosecuted or should we be thankful that here we have a council willing to stand up to those despicable people who call themselves Travellers? What other laws will an embolden council feel itself able to ignore? Abolish all laws and let local officials decide what law is?

With apologies and thanks to Martin Niemoller
I’ve found in general that those who have had first hand personal experience of the extreme mess and damage, the physical and verbal abuse, the constant violence and the increased thefts caused by certain groups are happy with any actions the councils take to protect local residents.

Whereas those who’ve never experienced it are much more likely to quote Niemoller.
 

maureenandtom

Full Member
Posts
1,197
Likes
1,808
Yes, well that's me I'm afraid. I see Royan's point and I sympathise. But, in my defence I think it more important that authority obeyst he laws authority makes. Haven't we seen the outrage during the pandemic of senior officials believing they are above the law? Well, I believe this council has broken the law. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this ethnic minority deserves all it gets - even if unlawful.

Imagine if a council denied the right to park to black people because they believed a number of crimes four years ago could be attributed to black visitors? They'd not get far with that one, I think. Some years ago, Leicester City Council took an advert in several national and foreign newspapers that Leicester did not want any more Asian Residents:

I think no council would get away with that one nowadays either. It's my hope that height barriers to deter a racial minority will be similarly abhorrent in the future.

Just because some of us might have suffered from the activities of pikies (change the first vowel and that word would not be allowed here) does not, I believe, permit us to act outside the law - and especially not if you are a lawmaker.



2021-07-19_100505.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 2021-07-19_100004.jpg
    2021-07-19_100004.jpg
    62.8 KB · Views: 3

Rolyan57

Full Member
Posts
28
Likes
35
The ones I’m talking about (and the ones the council are trying to prevent) certainly deserve all they get.

I’m still not convinced that what they are doing is unlawful. The same as the guy who lives near me has now closed his (private) country lane at night with a gate, as he was having MAJOR issues with it being used by Asian drug dealers. So now no one can use it, including Motorhome’s.
Do residents approve. Yes. Is it legal. Yes. Will some snowflakes object. Probably.
But those of us who have been experienced first hand what these groups do, welcome it with open arms.
 

GreggBear

Full Member
Posts
1,407
Likes
2,044
The obvious answer in my opinion, the unruly travellers in 2017 should have been dealt with there & then. Its fair comment that travelling people have rights to travel, but Police have laws to use against criminal activity regardless of who the culprit is. Violent affray can be dealt with under present laws, as can shoplifting etc. The problem starts when policemen are afraid to go against these people, so they go unpunished. If the police were able to catch & prosecute criminals properly, & the judicial system backed up with common sense rather than bowing down to the snowflakes, maybe these people would think twice before running amok. Then maybe this blanket "no travellers" ban wouldn't need to be in place.
What sort of sensible society can confuse some couple in a motorhome with a large group of Irish travellers?
 

Monitorlizard

Free Member
Posts
1
Likes
2
It is a shame but I do get why, a few years ago there was a bunch of travellers (most likely comes under a different name) stopped in Skegness, they left the place in an absolute state. So frustrating because it tars everyone with that same brush, hopefully oneday it'll change but I can't see it.
Same happened in Cromer,just before Covid struck.Shoplifting on a grand scale, fighting & muggings.Probably the same crew, travelling down the East Coast.Wells just protecting themselves from a repeat dose
 

Fisherman

Full Member
Posts
4,076
Likes
10,388
The ones I’m talking about (and the ones the council are trying to prevent) certainly deserve all they get.

I’m still not convinced that what they are doing is unlawful. The same as the guy who lives near me has now closed his (private) country lane at night with a gate, as he was having MAJOR issues with it being used by Asian drug dealers. So now no one can use it, including Motorhome’s.
Do residents approve. Yes. Is it legal. Yes. Will some snowflakes object. Probably.
But those of us who have been experienced first hand what these groups do, welcome it with open arms.
There’s a massive difference between private land, and public carparks that are built and maintained with our money. If it’s not unlawful it’s certainly immoral. No other group of law abiding people are treated like us, most groups are catered for in our society. But instead of being catered for we subjected to treatment unfit for people who have worked all of their adult lives and contributed to our respective countries.
 
Last edited:

Rob H

Full Member
Posts
101
Likes
112

Val54

Full Member
Posts
1,392
Likes
1,500
The obvious answer in my opinion, the unruly travellers in 2017 should have been dealt with there & then. Its fair comment that travelling people have rights to travel, but Police have laws to use against criminal activity regardless of who the culprit is. Violent affray can be dealt with under present laws, as can shoplifting etc. The problem starts when policemen are afraid to go against these people, so they go unpunished. If the police were able to catch & prosecute criminals properly, & the judicial system backed up with common sense rather than bowing down to the snowflakes, maybe these people would think twice before running amok. Then maybe this blanket "no travellers" ban wouldn't need to be in place.
What sort of sensible society can confuse some couple in a motorhome with a large group of Irish travellers?
Unfortunately that last sentence is rapidly becoming out of date, given the number of younger travellers who use motorhomes as they haven't passed the test for towing.
 

Val54

Full Member
Posts
1,392
Likes
1,500
The erection of height barriers on a public car park by a local authority is not illegal as they have extensive general powers to carry out their statutory functions which includes traffic management. We may not like it as motorhomers but realistically in areas where illegal incursions of travellers are relatively common, the local authority will always argue that such measures are in the wider public interest to keep car parks available for the general public. As I live in an area where incursions do happen, I wouldn't disagree. The counter point is what are the local authorities are doing about ensuring some motorhome parking remains available in a sensible location. That, of course is where we have little influence as the number of motorhome owners in any one local authority renders us a very small minority. That is compounded by the fact that when local authorities review their traffic management plans and carry out the statutory public consultation, how many motorhome owner responses do we think they get ............................
 

maureenandtom

Full Member
Posts
1,197
Likes
1,808
The ones I’m talking about (and the ones the council are trying to prevent) certainly deserve all they get.

I’m still not convinced that what they are doing is unlawful. The same as the guy who lives near me has now closed his (private) country lane at night with a gate, as he was having MAJOR issues with it being used by Asian drug dealers. So now no one can use it, including Motorhome’s.
Do residents approve. Yes. Is it legal. Yes. Will some snowflakes object. Probably.
But those of us who have been experienced first hand what these groups do, welcome it with open arms.
Quite possibly they do. I'm sure you;re right. Throw the book at them and when you've dealt with them throw away the key - but don;t break the law to do it. That way lies an apology and compensation some time in the future. The guy with his private property can make his own rules. If he was to charge for his services and decided to exclude a particular section of society simply because of colour, race, etc then, I'm not sure either, but I think he's be breaking the law. Otherwise, his propetty, hisr rules.

Anyone who accepts authority having unlimited authority is asking for trouble. Luckily most of society, our society, believes in the rule of law. And if they don;t, well I do and I'm thankful for it.
 

maureenandtom

Full Member
Posts
1,197
Likes
1,808
The erection of height barriers on a public car park by a local authority is not illegal as they have extensive general powers to carry out their statutory functions which includes traffic management. We may not like it as motorhomers but realistically in areas where illegal incursions of travellers are relatively common, the local authority will always argue that such measures are in the wider public interest to keep car parks available for the general public. As I live in an area where incursions do happen, I wouldn't disagree. The counter point is what are the local authorities are doing about ensuring some motorhome parking remains available in a sensible location. That, of course is where we have little influence as the number of motorhome owners in any one local authority renders us a very small minority. That is compounded by the fact that when local authorities review their traffic management plans and carry out the statutory public consultation, how many motorhome owner responses do we think they get ............................

Once again, quite possibly you're right. I think this council has said we have erected these barriers because of the bad behaviour of a particular race. We are on high alert for them now, This appears to be a contravention of the race relations Act quoted earlier that no such discrimination can be made. This trumps the general powers - a little more later. If the bouncer - and Karl Read (?) - had kept quiet then nothing could be done. As it stands the feeling against this racial minority is strong enough that we will accept the council breaking the law. That is our loss. Probably nothing will be done. Not by me any more anyway.

On this occasion it seems, from the council statement that this was not put to public discussion but was agreed at a meeeting of the Polce Authority and Senior Management, ie council workers. Not even put to a full council.

You're right about motorhome responses locally but only partly right. The general powers you refer to are authorised by the Localism Act of 2011, A number of councils, Brighton and Hove, Rother and one or two others used PSPOs to control traffic (specifically Travellers (and us). There was a sufficient opposition to this misuse of power (which is also prohibited in the govt guidelines for their use_ that it's now been several years since any council tried to use a PSPO to control traffic. I think the last I know of is at Leeming Bar about two or so years ago. That PSPO is still valid but, so far as I know, has never been enforced.

(Oh last thing - many of the public consultations carried out to justify PSPOs (Localism Act) used a slanted questioning to support the council's wishes. For example, in Rother, I think, the questions for a PSPO banning motorhome parking followed the lines of "Do you agree that motorhomes should be allowed to camp at the side of road for ulimited periods" Despite widespread criticism I believe some questionaires follow the same sort of bias.)
 

Val54

Full Member
Posts
1,392
Likes
1,500
Once again, quite possibly you're right. I think this council has said we have erected these barriers because of the bad behaviour of a particular race. We are on high alert for them now, This appears to be a contravention of the race relations Act quoted earlier that no such discrimination can be made. This trumps the general powers - a little more later. If the bouncer - and Karl Read (?) - had kept quiet then nothing could be done. As it stands the feeling against this racial minority is strong enough that we will accept the council breaking the law. That is our loss. Probably nothing will be done. Not by me any more anyway.

On this occasion it seems, from the council statement that this was not put to public discussion but was agreed at a meeeting of the Polce Authority and Senior Management, ie council workers. Not even put to a full council.

You're right about motorhome responses locally but only partly right. The general powers you refer to are authorised by the Localism Act of 2011, A number of councils, Brighton and Hove, Rother and one or two others used PSPOs to control traffic (specifically Travellers (and us). There was a sufficient opposition to this misuse of power (which is also prohibited in the govt guidelines for their use_ that it's now been several years since any council tried to use a PSPO to control traffic. I think the last I know of is at Leeming Bar about two or so years ago. That PSPO is still valid but, so far as I know, has never been enforced.

(Oh last thing - many of the public consultations carried out to justify PSPOs (Localism Act) used a slanted questioning to support the council's wishes. For example, in Rother, I think, the questions for a PSPO banning motorhome parking followed the lines of "Do you agree that motorhomes should be allowed to camp at the side of road for ulimited periods" Despite widespread criticism I believe some questionaires follow the same sort of bias.)
One of the best current sources for background info for local authority powers can be found here ...
One issue that we often overlook is how local authorities delegate their own powers. A lot of LA's operate "cabinet" style management where the powers for a specific area of services are overseen and determined by one elected member of the majority party, a lot of decisions are delegated to the cabinet member and/or relevant senior council officer. The ability for decisions to be "called in" to a full Council meeting vary from council to council but can be quite limited.
But back to playing "devil's advocate" , how does the erection of the height barrier contravene the Race Relations Act when it stops all high vehicles using the car park not just those of travellers. Conversely the travellers are just as able to access the car park in a car as any other group. As you say, its only inflammatory in race relation terms because of the statements made at the time. As always the answer returns to providing enough accommodation for travellers whether permanent or transit sites and dealing with unlawful behaviour properly, whoever it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: REC

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:446)

Tapfitter, Harryw, IanT, V1nny, MartinFife, mistericeman, r4dent, Fisherman, RoaminRog, colinm, ajb70, Tezza33, mark61, Debroos, Heppy, maingate, bartman, Victor, Haaamster, Farman, number14, campervanannie, RoadTrek Boy, Norfolk NewBoy, Buckby, gypo, Nesting Zombie, caledonia, 1807truckman, SCRUMPY BOY, terrywolf, TeamRienza, maureenandtom, Makzine, Toffeecat, Canalsman, Edina, wildebus, Larnie, Tookey, jeffmossy, tidewatcher, 2cv, Scotia, Budgie, Nabsim, The laird, AdriaTwin, izwozral, Mandoman, RV2MAX, ironman, GinaRon, skippy 66, Chris Evans001, bmc, justRoamin, st3v3, TissyD, Biggarmac, myvanwy, molly 2, harrow, davep10000, cod, Val54, chyperie, Pete4285, trevskoda, brian c, kevlakes, Android, saxonborg, ramblefrog, pj650, Tonybvi, Alberto, SouthernTribby, GreggBear, Mark M, FireFox, tripper, n brown, thebeeman, Wully, SquirrellCook, Bigshug, smg, GeoffL, Drover, Compo, Justjack, I&MK, Skyrakes, yorkslass, witzend, pamjon, cornish hymer, Phantom, linkshouse, helmit, Herman, oppy, DTF, s4x4c, specky4eyes, Rod, kernewek, Glass man, paulhelenwilko, mike17, ton27, JVG, belslot, QFour, jeanette, Luckheart, highlandron, TJBi, ARDAS, alcam, Funbus, The Raptor, korky, TheDon, scampa, Wetwalker, clarkpeacock, mjvw, ricc, Big Chief, Potter74, RichardHelen262, vtwinner, Nigel L, Pedalman, Peter Hislop, keith49, fiona68, Okta, DRC, Jools, Alec, barryd, groyne, Ted, falcon, polo99, rugbyken, ian1950, denmar, dunfillin, Spacerunner, jacquigem, silverweed, TheSphere, castleblack, MOJO, Matchlock, jann, noah and nelly, nutts, Wheelie, Gerti58, leetori, Wooie1958, ScoTTyBEEE, Blue yonder, Nidge, Millie Master, cogsey, jagmanx, Martin P, magpus, Fazerloz, campergramps, mrdon, MikeLynch, Babybirddog, Somerled, Matchbox, CliveW, Robmac, TonyEmm, The Jacks, Evil Elsie, MollsPhot, Johnsais, Mervyn, Stu2, barge1914, Buzzard, CWH, dunholmer83, ScarletPimple, Gerry Attrick, Goggles, Chris Craven, Cass, Brockley, justjude90, Veloman, horace, Fragle, alwaysared, Benylin, peejay, yorkshireCPLE, Ex Greeny, jordan, Adria home, FarWest, Greengrass, HurricaneSmith, BABs, alertcamper, Vader, Alannjill, regent, belbri, Belka, Rick, buryanna, Jill, Colinsmiff, Lilyflower, Jo001, adriandp, hania00, Gadabout2, Mberry, iandsm, john77, brigstow, VandA, Minisorella, BOTCANU, Reikiman, Morphology, suneye, Moonraker 2, SHABBINS, Poacher, baba, Costers, BM48, FULL TIMER, anna1976, BKCharles, TrishAndyHolt, Tweedy, colins202, tsi336, thesTig, GLT, Debs, mimbrit, Chilumba, Hayesdec, Beldea, Moc, Genie, Thistle, Oztega, Sheringham4, Chasn, MrRush, ChrisInNotts, sjpkgp, davidjlambert, Jaguar, mick n jules, Subablu, Bilw, Boris7, EllieM, Nowego, Mossystone, Angmax, murthat, nomis64, Chrisp955, dane, wilfyboy, harrym, Owlhouse, Pete Rachel, Sue Paskins, Motoroamer, Judith, DorisBoris, Bertilak, Devonbey, kensowerby, Rutaria, Mtbcol, richmusic, Roverdave, alanfleming, anthonymorsink, AllyPally, obladi, JimandHazel, RSD7a, paulsbiz, Rolyan57, Grum, DavidRoberts, Dave H, village, Alun100, Steve and Julie, chubadub, RUBBLE, BlueVanMan, holeshole, Pierre leGrim, juke, ciderboy, ragittyrags, Badgerbosslady, gpz, Amethyst, Selwoc, Tim1953, tadpole58, Monitorlizard, winks, kultabob, Rob H, wrp, musicman55ish, chipie, beedubbleyoo, stoneybroke, BigAldo, Harrythehedgeho, Patandtubs, brugge, Tallyman, RichardP, Bazza1509, paul99, hanger18, ozzy1955, phtron, kim, terry ward, DaveP, Mikecoo, Andylynne, DAVEY, Hughendon, Monkeybrand, Diver1swife, Catchic, Mike4x4, rottiontour, Snapster, Guinevere, wesaaron, Petethetug, chrishunter, Lee, alun145, Dhara, Funman, kwismason, AllanD, NSY, gerrevelyn, Captain Haddock, ATwin, Sambarob, vindiboy, Dicknmaggie, topchook, walpeter, Otter1959, TonyB, Terryww, Paul 123, Bounce, Stanski, carol, flying kipper, Hycon, wilsal, flav, BarkWick, Craster van kippers, Derek, RLS8467, Forcesixwindy, MollyChausson, JC55, Penny13, Bulldog Ronnie, LaSource22, Alli B, zzr1400tim, Pauljenny, Andys, Bushwirebarb, argoose, Janet W, Alcfire, seadogjon, Tiggytravels, Nigel Cox, Boxerfrogs, tallulahstansfield, theisacsontour, aferris2, Alanturner2, DTDOG, tim m154, Conroy, Sheila Bryant, Keithr47, Harleyboygaz3, Ferris day off, Apollo 13, Team ST, PaulH, eriksleden, vespa, Stuart A, Cheepskait, sueb, andybankstreet, Sengandrew, karencrussell, Mickrick, Deek, Ken Parsons, mickymost, Stevie 25, Roy Laura, Di1234, Sailorpedal, Rockerboots, Scottishstewpot, harpypaul, LightboxUK, sinner,
Top