Wells on Sea...no go area!

maureenandtom said:
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.
Click to expand...
That’s great to hear it was a formal response from the Council. There’s even less reason for you to put things off now.

There’s no need for me or anyone else to second guess what the council might say. All that’s needed is for you to start your legal challenge. The longer you prevaricate the harder it will be.
 
molly 2 said:
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
Click to expand...
The car park is run for a sports centre and had to close down for staff safety , local pubs were damaged and shop owners were abused , can you imagine the receptionist telling the travellers no you can't use our toilets and showers , no returns since barriers were fitted.,
 
Rolyan57 said:
That’s great to hear it was a formal response from the Council. There’s even less reason for you to put things off now.

There’s no need for me or anyone else to second guess what the council might say. All that’s needed is for you to start your legal challenge. The longer you prevaricate the harder it will be.
Click to expand...
Ah, the good old playground arguments. Never fail to amuse. You must try to keep up.

I refer you to Post 108.
 
molly 2 said:
The car park is run for a sports centre and had to close down for staff safety , local pubs were damaged and shop owners were abused , can you imagine the receptionist telling the travellers no you can't use our toilets and showers , no returns since barriers were fitted.,
Click to expand...
And Theron lies the problem. Receptionist should be able to ring the law, & the law should respond & deal with it. Why should any staff member in any establishment be expected to deal with what is essentially an illegal act? If the law used the powers they already have, there would be no need for barriers etc....
 
GreggBear said:
And Theron lies the problem. Receptionist should be able to ring the law, & the law should respond & deal with it. Why should any staff member in any establishment be expected to deal with what is essentially an illegal act? If the law used the powers they already have, there would be no need for barriers etc....
Click to expand...
Thank you. My point of view exactly.
 
GreggBear said:
And Theron lies the problem. Receptionist should be able to ring the law, & the law should respond & deal with it. Why should any staff member in any establishment be expected to deal with what is essentially an illegal act? If the law used the powers they already have, there would be no need for barriers etc....
Click to expand...
So the long and the short of it is.
A bunch of travellers cause bother before they are evicted from a carpark previously used by cars and motorhomes.
The council eventually get rid of the travellers and the motorhomes.

Now thats what I call natural justice EH :(
 
Fisherman said:
So the long and the short of it is.
A bunch of travellers cause bother before they are evicted from a carpark previously used by cars and motorhomes.
The council eventually get rid of the travellers and the motorhomes.

Now thats what I call natural justice EH :(
Click to expand...
Not what I'm saying. The law should be empowered to use existing laws to deal with illegal traveller activity. The travellers would then be less likely to be so offensive, as they would be aware that their behaviour would be swiftly dealt with. "Peace " would then return & the need for barriers would go away. Not rocket science, before the country was run by pussies, lawlessness was much less prevalent....
 
molly 2 said:
Ring the law these days and the standard answer is we can't do anything , especially when reporting open drug dealing ,going way of topic so I'm out
Click to expand...
My point exactly. If the present laws aren't being upheld, what's the point introducing more new laws? They won't be used against the people that cause 99% of the problems, but will be used against decent law abiding people, who are the only ones likely to adhere to them. That way the powers that be can say "look, our new laws are working, we moved on some people in motorhomes".......
 
GreggBear said:
Not what I'm saying. The law should be empowered to use existing laws to deal with illegal traveller activity. The travellers would then be less likely to be so offensive, as they would be aware that their behaviour would be swiftly dealt with. "Peace " would then return & the need for barriers would go away. Not rocket science, before the country was run by pussies, lawlessness was much less prevalent....
Click to expand...
I was not having a go at you Greg, I was actually supporting you.
I think if you read my previous posts you will see that.
But the bottom line with regards to Mollies carpark still stands.
The council have now dealt with the travellers and us for the actions of the travellers. But we won’t cut down the barriers, they might.
 
Last edited:
Sorry if I came over wrong, wasn't having a go. I agree on your points, whatever the circumstances, we as law abiding holidaymakers have now got one less option to park up at. Not sure what the future will hold for us or motorhoming in general, I try not to get wound up & just enjoy the freedom we have left, such as it is. Read a report the other day that said 1 in 6 UK adults have now converted a van or have plans to convert one. That's a lot of bodies, hopefully they can find a way to all pull together for the greater good....🐻👍
 
So I say again, for those who are disappointed and those who insist it’s not legal, why not raise a legal challenge against it.
 
There is already a simple, lawful answer. If the relevant local authority for the area had provided the required number of permanent and transit Traveller pitches, the police already have the powers to disperse the unauthorised encampment without waiting for the courts. Of course most Councils do not fully meet their Traveller obligations to allow these police powers to be used. A judicial review could produce a landmark decision but it would only apply to this particular decision. Other councils may not display the same "honesty/mistake" in justifying their actions. The council and police will argue that it was expedient and an action of last resort in the circumstances. An equally interesting point would be to try and get a judicial comment on why that decision hasn't been reviewed given the impact of the height barrier on the wider population. That would give potential ammunition for other examples. There's another £5 here.
 
Rolyan57 said:
So I say again, for those who are disappointed and those who insist it’s not legal, why not raise a legal challenge against it.
Click to expand...
I'm disappointed and suspect it's not legal, but I've just turned away OS surveyors from my door explaining that it's my dirty washing pile and not recent tectonic activity and I got an email from the WHO stating once they've finished with Wuhan they want to check my bathroom! Time for legal battles, hah, I'm now off spend 15 minutes trying to brush my 3yr olds teeth, maybe I should try the legal battle, that one I might win 😆
 
Last edited:
Tookey said:
I'm disappointed and suspect it's not legal, but I've just turned away OS surveyors from my door explaining that it's my dirty washing pile and not recent tectonic activity and I got an email from the WHO stating once they've finished with Wuhan they want to check my bathroom! Time for legal battles, hah, I'm now off spend 15 minutes trying to brush my 3yr olds teeth, maybe I should try the legal battle, that one I might win 😆
Click to expand...
No one said it would be easy. But if it’s so clearly ‘illegal’, as some suggest, I would have hoped someone could have initiated the challenge, using the process outlined, to win what could be such a momentous landmark ruling.

You could have been the Motorhomer’s urban legend.
 
maureenandtom said:
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.
Click to expand...
hi there, I have had no further reply....But if you would like the emails pm me your email and I'll endeavour to forward them to you. I think, following this correspondence, that the car park we went to is actually run by Holkham Hall Estates....But although the town clerk forwarded the email to them, had no further comment.
Sorry for the delay, had a lot going on lately and missed this post!
Ruth
 
Last edited:
REC said:
hi there, I have had no further reply....But if you would like the emails pm me your email and I'll endeavour to forward them to you. I think, following this correspondence, that the car park we went to is actually run by Holkham Hall Estates....But although the town clerk forwarded the email to them, had no further comment.
Sorry for the delay, had a lot going on lately and missed this post!
Ruth
Click to expand...
Thanks Ruth pm on its way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: REC
Personally I don’t think the height barriers are anything to do with travellers per se, I think they want to stop as many motorhomes and camper vans as they can. I bet these people hate the fact smaller vans can fit under the barrier.

Why would they want anyone who can prepare and eat their own food and drink without having to go to cafe’s and restaurants. Why would they want views blocking out, most can see over cars from property. Everyone knows if you live in a property you have absolute right to stop anyone parking in your street, blocking your view etc etc. Councils and media don’t need to portray us in a bad light a lot go out their way to do this themselves.

p.s. only the first paragraph is meant to be my real opinion, while I believe there is a lot of truth in the second paragraph it is meant in defilement 😂😂😂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top