Wells on Sea...no go area!

[alcam]

So snowflakes, or people who seem to look for areas where they can find fault with common sense, aren't 'actual things'?

No they are 'adjectives' . Height barriers are things you can't drive under

 

[Val54]

The Law changed in Ireland and a lot of Travellers moved out. Many to the UK and more to the EU. Perhaps when we bring in similar legislation they may move elsewhere.

Maybe so, but wouldn't that now depend on the nationality of the traveller and the colour of their passport? I think the fact that the police argued against the new legislation at the consultation stage gives an inkling as to how successful they think it will be.

 

[REC]

I am amazed at the length of this thread. My main argument is that height barriers stop everyone. If the council really wanted to stop only people who may "take over" or "commit criminal acts" (whether travellers or just a group of convoy motorhomes) then a pay to leave barrier which limits the stay (can't leave without attendant if they are there for more than prescribed time..48hrs?) should deter them without impeding everyone. I just think that there is no innovative thinking going on just lazy blanket policies.
Where we lived in Kent, a group of Travellers took over the grassed area outside the council offices...didn't bother with the car park at all....so I do appreciate the problems they are concerned over, but it is discriminatory to state that the reason for height barriers is to stop travellers so they need to be a bit more imaginative in mitigating risks whilst being fair to those who are not intending to commit criminal acts.

 

[Millie Master]

Then a pay to leave barrier which limits the stay (can't leave without attendant if they are there for more than prescribed time..48hrs?) should deter them without impeding everyone. I just think that there is no innovative thinking going on just lazy blanket policies.

Having had extensive experiences of these groups, then any barrier is about as much use as a chocolate tea pot because they would simply get out their angle grinders and the entire barrier structure would be out of the way in a few seconds!

 

[Rolyan57]

No one is asking for authority to have unlimited powers.

Many many of us want authority to take a tough (legal) stance in specific circumstances against those that blight society.

 

[maureenandtom]

No one is asking for authority to have unlimited powers.

Many many of us want authority to take a tough (legal) stance in specific circumstances against those that blight society.

Of course. And I'm one of them. But - legal action always.

 

[Rolyan57]

Of course. And I'm one of them. But - legal action always.

Absolutely. But as you know, this isn’t necessarily illegal. If people think it is, why not club together for a solicitor to challenge it, in Court if necessary.

 

[maureenandtom]

Absolutely. But as you know, this isn’t necessarily illegal. If people think it is, why not club together for a solicitor to challenge it, in Court if necessary.

What a good idea. Well, it's an idea anyway. I'd support you so let us know when you want to begin and I'll put a fiver towards it. Of course your suggestion might not have been serious.

But, I think my way would be better.

The single bit of evidence we have right now is in the posession of REC. The email from the council spokesman saying that the barriers are a response to bad behaviour by an ethnic minority. My guess is that the council, if asked to explain why it apparently denies the non-discrimination rights of an ethnic minority, would very quickly back-pedal and we would find that their spokesman wasn't talking just of Travellers but of all of us in motorhomes. Travellers are collateral damage - no racial offence intended.

Would REC allow us to contact the council for an explanation? We'd need a printout of the email – not just a copy of the text. If no explanation then a straightforward complaint to the Norfolk Constabulary that a crime had been committed; would they investigate please? Copy the complaint to whatever organisation seems relevant – Gypsy and Traveller Councils, Racial Equality Authorities and whatever else we can think of.

That's what I would do.

So far REC seems to have done us proud.

 

[Rolyan57]

What a good idea. Well, it's an idea anyway. I'd support you so let us know when you want to begin and I'll put a fiver towards it. Of course your suggestion might not have been serious.

But, I think my way would be better.

The single bit of evidence we have right now is in the posession of REC. The email from the council spokesman saying that the barriers are a response to bad behaviour by an ethnic minority. My guess is that the council, if asked to explain why it apparently denies the non-discrimination rights of an ethnic minority, would very quickly back-pedal and we would find that their spokesman wasn't talking just of Travellers but of all of us in motorhomes. Travellers are collateral damage - no racial offence intended.

Would REC allow us to contact the council for an explanation? We'd need a printout of the email – not just a copy of the text. If no explanation then a straightforward complaint to the Norfolk Constabulary that a crime had been committed; would they investigate please? Copy the complaint to whatever organisation seems relevant – Gypsy and Traveller Councils, Racial Equality Authorities and whatever else we can think of.

That's what I would do.

So far REC seems to have done us proud.

You misunderstand me. I don’t think they are doing anything illegal. I certainly don’t think there is a conspiracy against Motorhome’s, despite all these that appear to desperately want one.

In my opinion they are rightly trying to stop those ‘travellers’ that cause so much violence, mess, disturbance and increased crime. Good for them, it’s a shame we don’t all stand up to them a bit more.

But I know that there are those who keep insisting that this is illegal. So, if you’re one of them, stand up and be counted. Form a group, put your money where your mouth is and pay for a legal challenge.

 

[maureenandtom]

You misunderstand me. I don’t think they are doing anything illegal. I certainly don’t think there is a conspiracy against Motorhome’s, despite all these that appear to desperately want one.

In my opinion they are rightly trying to stop those ‘travellers’ that cause so much violence, mess, disturbance and increased crime. Good for them, it’s a shame we don’t all stand up to them a bit more.

But I know that there are those who keep insisting that this is illegal. So, if you’re one of them, stand up and be counted. Form a group, put your money where your mouth is and pay for a legal challenge.

Serious question. I truly want to know. Is that all Travellers you want to discriminate against? Are there no law-abiding Gypsies and Travellers? They are all the same violent criminals? All of them? All of them deserve to be discriminated against?

I think I do not misunderstand you.

 

[Rolyan57]

Serious question. I truly want to know. Is that all Travellers you want to discriminate against? Are there no law-abiding Gypsies and Travellers? They are all the same violent criminals? All of them? All of them deserve to be discriminated against?

I think I do not misunderstand you.

No, I don’t want to discriminate against all travellers. Which is why I clearly referred to “those ‘travellers’ who” etc. etc.

The council had an extreme problems had took steps to prevent it. Many others have witnessed this happen in their area and applaud those who try to deal with this problem. The violence. The crime. The extreme and extensive mess and filth left behind.

The point remains that if there are enough keyboard warriors who think this is illegal, there is a very simple solution. Challenge it.

 

[trevskoda]

Over here if travelers mone into places and cause trouble the paramilitary groups sort it when the police cannot and they turn a blind eye, justice and democracy is only ever restored at the end of a gun barrel.
May sound harsh to some but its a fact and true.

 

[Robmac]

No, I don’t want to discriminate against all travellers. Which is why I clearly referred to “those ‘travellers’ who” etc. etc.

The council had an extreme problems had took steps to prevent it. Many others have witnessed this happen in their area and applaud those who try to deal with this problem. The violence. The crime. The extreme and extensive mess and filth left behind.

The point remains that if there are enough keyboard warriors who think this is illegal, there is a very simple solution. Challenge it.

And therein lies the problem. Councils have to act for their constituents.

The public see 'travellers' misbehaving and there is uproar, the councils tackle this by tarring all with the same brush and imposing a blanket ban, the public see action being taken.

As a group, we also have a minority who leave a mess, take up more than one parking space etc. etc. Just recently one of our members reported that 6 motorhomes were dumping sewage into a harbour. It's easier and cheaper for councils to just ban all rather than try to police it, sadly that's the way it is.

Unfortunately, the non-motorhoming public are just as blinkered. They see a big motorhome spread over a few parking spaces with chairs and tables out (we've all seen it) and they see us as rich, arrogant freeloaders and the press do nothing to change that view. The public are fickle - especially when it comes to their own back yard.

 

[maureenandtom]

No, I don’t want to discriminate against all travellers. Which is why I clearly referred to “those ‘travellers’ who” etc. etc.

The council had an extreme problems had took steps to prevent it. Many others have witnessed this happen in their area and applaud those who try to deal with this problem. The violence. The crime. The extreme and extensive mess and filth left behind.

The point remains that if there are enough keyboard warriors who think this is illegal, there is a very simple solution. Challenge it.

"No, I don’t want to discriminate against all travellers"

Then we are of like mind. What is your solution? I have told you mine.

But let us begin.. Play devil's advocate. in a civilised manner, for me and bring me the answer to the first question that has to be asked. Why do you think the council's admission that it discriminates against Travellers (the REC email) is not a crime against the Act already quoted? You have said you do not wish to punish the innocent. Perhaps the council is not doing so - I may be wrong. If there is no crime then the innocent are not being punished. And nor are we being punished. I think we are. Do you think we are not?

Why do you think the council's admission that it discriminates against Travellers is not a crime against the Act already quoted?

It is a small but essential courtesy to capitalise Travellers. We are not travellers.

 

[maureenandtom]

To save a little time. Not my way, although I have twice used it, but worthy of consideration. It was used, I think, to famous effect by Gina Miller.

How to make a legal challenge. First read this.

First we have to have an interest. In my view, we have. We are caught up in an imposition by the Council on Travellers. We have to prove illegality, irrationality or gross unreasonableness.

The only piece of evidence we have so far is the email from the council's spokesman saying the barriers were erected to prevent a repetition of Travellers' criminal behaviour. We would have to allege that other criminals do not receive blanket bans to include the innnocent and the discrimination against ALL Traveller is illegal, or irrational or unreasonable.

This could be momentous. I believe this is the fist time any council has admitted the true reason for height barriers. Up to this incident all councils allege bad behaviour from ALL motorhomers (EDIT - Travellers are never mentioned) – and we do not have anti-discrimination protection. Travellers do. It now becomes likely that councils are aware of the illegality of discrimination and always allege ALL motorhomers need to be deterred. Such allegations have never been proved – indeed disproved when challenged to proved information under the Freedom of Information Act.

To begin proceedings we first have to notify the council that we are bringing an action. This costs nothing. But the council must have the right to dispute what we're saying. We do this by following a strictly laid down Letter Before Claim in which we clearly put our argument. The council then has the right to reply to us – within a strict time limit, I think 14 days – and we then have to decide whether to proceed to court. This requires a fee – not a very large one, but a fee nevertheless.

Were I to take this route I would begin by asking REC to Forward the email to me, draft a Letter Before Claim and wait to see what the council had to say.

We have to begin judicial review procedings within a very short time. I think three months in this case - and that would be three months from when we became aware that the counci's action was specificly against Travellers - the REC email again.

Can a rational person justify the council's decision to ban an entire ethnic minority? A rational person here has said that he does not wish to punish the entire minority. I think he's right; it is not rational to ban the entire for the crimes of a few.

Unless, of course, the entire Traveller people are guilty.

 

[Rolyan57]

"No, I don’t want to discriminate against all travellers"

Then we are of like mind. What is your solution? I have told you mine.

But let us begin.. Play devil's advocate. in a civilised manner, for me and bring me the answer to the first question that has to be asked. Why do you think the council's admission that it discriminates against Travellers (the REC email) is not a crime against the Act already quoted? You have said you do not wish to punish the innocent. Perhaps the council is not doing so - I may be wrong. If there is no crime then the innocent are not being punished. And nor are we being punished. I think we are. Do you think we are not?

Why do you think the council's admission that it discriminates against Travellers is not a crime against the Act already quoted?

It is a small but essential courtesy to capitalise Travellers. We are not travellers.

To save a little time. Not my way, although I have twice used it, but worthy of consideration. It was used, I think, to famous effect by Gina Miller.

How to make a legal challenge. First read this.


View attachment 100713



First we have to have an interest. In my view, we have. We are caught up in an imposition by the Council on Travellers. We have to prove illegality, irrationality or gross unreasonableness.

The only piece of evidence we have so far is the email from the council's spokesman saying the barriers were erected to prevent a repetition of Travellers' criminal behaviour. We would have to allege that other criminals do not receive blanket bans to include the innnocent and the discrimination against ALL Traveller is illegal, or irrational or unreasonable.

This could be momentous. I believe this is the fist time any council has admitted the true reason for height barriers. Up to this incident all councils allege bad behaviour from ALL motorhomers (EDIT - Travellers are never mentioned) – and we do not have anti-discrimination protection. Travellers do. It now becomes likely that councils are aware of the illegality of discrimination and always allege ALL motorhomers need to be deterred. Such allegations have never been proved – indeed disproved when challenged to proved information under the Freedom of Information Act.

To begin proceedings we first have to notify the council that we are bringing an action. This costs nothing. But the council must have the right to dispute what we're saying. We do this by following a strictly laid down Letter Before Claim in which we clearly put our argument. The council then has the right to reply to us – within a strict time limit, I think 14 days – and we then have to decide whether to proceed to court. This requires a fee – not a very large one, but a fee nevertheless.

Were I to take this route I would begin by asking REC to Forward the email to me, draft a Letter Before Claim and wait to see what the council had to say.

We have to begin judicial review procedings within a very short time. I think three months in this case - and that would be three months from when we became aware that the counci's action was specificly against Travellers - the REC email again.

Can a rational person justify the council's decision to ban an entire ethnic minority? A rational person here has said that he does not wish to punish the entire minority. I think he's right; it is not rational to ban the entire for the crimes of a few.

Unless, of course, the entire Traveller people are guilty.

Very quickly, as I’m going out.

We need to remember that this is not the Councils formal position. It’s the case as stated by a parking attendant.

Some of us think the response is proportionate and legal. For those who don’t, the above is the best process to follow. Much better than simply complaining on here which will achieve nothing.

 

[maureenandtom]

Very quickly, as I’m going out.

We need to remember that this is not the Councils formal position. It’s the case as stated by a parking attendant.

Some of us think the response is proportionate and legal. For those who don’t, the above is the best process to follow. Much better than simply complaining on here which will achieve nothing.

Just the sort of thing I would need - were I to mount an application.

You think

Karl Read
Leisure and Locality Services Manager
+441263 516002

is just a parking attendant? I think he is a council spokesman. He said

A joint decision was made by the Police and Council Senior Management to install these barriers following the bad experience we had from travellers in August 2017, when most of the town’s pubs and cafes had to close for fear of safety of their staff and customers. The previous night they have received abuse and harassment, with travellers demanding free drinks, food and also money.

I think their decision was illegal, irrational and unreasonable. I'd be looking for a decent devil's advocate to tell me why their decision was legal, rational and reasonable. I've shown why I think their decision was illegal. You have stated it is unreasonable. Can we get something on the rational point? I think it is irrational because it simply displaces the criminal behaviour to another place.

Be nice to get the arguments from you in anticipation of what the council might say.

 

[molly 2]

We had an invasion of travellers in our village car park car park ,they were removed and hight barriers were erected. Never thought I would be happy to see a hight barriers but yes I was

 

[Fisherman]

We had an invasion of travellers in our village car park car park ,they were removed and hight barriers were erected. Never thought I would be happy to see a hight barriers but yes I was

Molly Travellers have cutting equipment that can easily remove height barriers, and have done so up here.
Erecting height barriers simply prevents decent folk from using facilities that they have paid for.
I understand your point, and I can even sympathise with it.
And yes here's the but, I don't agree with the erection of height barriers because of the actions of travellers.
But thats just my opinion, and thats not worth much.

 

[GreggBear]

Well said. Travellers aren't bothered about barriers, the only people inconvenienced by barriers are the law abiding folk....