Wells on Sea...no go area!

[Tookey]

Height barriers cost a grand and salaried workers will erect them, they are cheap 'vote winners', they can be physically seen by the tax payer which is always popular and on a more subconscious level barriers say to the local voter 'we care about you, we protect you, we don't want to spend your money cleaning up, we have your interests at heart'

 

[Norfolk NewBoy]

Perhaps you're unaware of the parking in Wells? The Holkham Estate carpark is surrounded by open countryside with the nearest building probably 100metres away. It was "built" approx 2y ago and has a lovely concrete road in (and obviously out), lots of space and stone parking areas, mainly backing onto grass, with easy overhangs.

There is some on-street parking around the town but most is fairly congested and is mainly time-limited.

Holkham also own the Beach road carpark which is approx 0.5 miles from town and I think they have installed height barriers there.

Once upon a time we were allowed to park on the quayside (£4.50 for 24h) which has superb views up the estuary and is only metres from the fish n chip shops!

Gordon

 

[yorkslass]

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.

Time to become an urban legend yourself?

 

[Rolyan57]

Time to become an urban legend yourself?

If I thought it was illegal, yes I would do something. That’s the difference.

 

[maureenandtom]

If I thought it was illegal, yes I would do something. That’s the difference.

Thank you. That's an excellent reason for not doing anything and a good reason too for not supporting those who might.

The council spokesman said the height barriers were in response to criminal behaviour from Travellers. The effect of the barriers is to exclude all Travcllers in high sided vehicles and this, he states, is his intention – to protect communities and businesses from Traveller criminal behaviour. I think this makes them discriminatory and in contravention of legislation. Had he said, like all other councils before him, that the barriers were in response to rubbish left by motorhomers and substantial numbers of complaints from residents then he would have been in the clear No discrimination. But he didn't. He wishes to provide protection from Travllers. So excludes all who might be Travellers.

The Commissioner for Human Rights wrote to the Speakers of the House of Commons and House of Lords on 1st July this year on a subject we've discussed here before. I quote from his letter:

“While the government can legitimately pursue actions to prevent public disorder, crime or nuisance, these should be clearly circumscribed, and any measures taken in this respect should be proportionate and non-discriminatory “
https://rm.coe.int/letter-to-rt-hon-sir-lindsay-hoyle-mp-speaker-of-the-house-of-commons-/1680a305a3

I can find no evidence, though I've searched, that makes the council action anything other than unlawful. On the other hand I can find lots of evidence that their action has no lawful basis.

Can I ask? You believe the council action is legal. Is this just instinct? Nothing wrong with instinct – very often it proves to be accurate. But it would be grand if you could explain why the council is not being discriminatory against an ethnic minority? Not only grand but very useful because the council will now have to wriggle (if should someone complain to it) and somehow explain how they do not contravene equality legislation.

Please? Your evidence?

 

[Fisherman]

If I thought it was illegal, yes I would do something. That’s the difference.

It always worries me when laymen talk about legality.
I tend to leave my health to medical professionals, my plumbing to a good plumber, and any legal matters to those qualified to deal with such matters.
But I have nothing against instinct, and a sense of injustice.
And when I hear of councils banning law abiding, tax paying, on the whole elderly people, who have worked hard all of their lives due to the actions of some diametrically opposed to us, that sense of injustice comes right to the fore.

May I respectfully request that you look at this from a less dispassionate viewpoint, and allow any sense of possible injustice to flourish. Because for people like us that’s all we have.

Just imagine this council attempted to ban cyclists, dog walkers, or any other group, There would be a public outcry, and therein lies my sense of injustice. Instead of that outcry we have people talking about legalities, when this has more to do with a moral injustice. And legal or iIlegal there are times when that sense of moral injustice, should take precedence and eventually become a legal injustice. Which in my honest opinion that’s exactly what it is, but then that’s not for me to decide now is it.

 

[Robmac]

It always worries me when laymen talk about legality.
I tend to leave my health to medical professionals, my plumbing to a good plumber, and any legal matters to those qualified to deal with such matters.
But I have nothing against instinct, and a sense of injustice.
And when I hear of councils banning law abiding, tax paying, on the whole elderly people, who have worked hard all of their lives due to the actions of some diametrically opposed to us, that sense of injustice comes right to the fore.

May I respectfully request that you look at this from less dispassionate viewpoint, and allow any sense of possible injustice to flourish. Because for people like us that’s all we have.

Just imagine this council attempted to ban cyclists, dog walkers, or any other group, There would be a public outcry, and therein lies my sense of injustice. Instead of that outcry we have people talking about legalities, when this has more to do with a moral injustice. And legal or iIlegal there are times when that sense of moral injustice, should take precedence and eventually become a legal injustice. Which in my honest opinion that’s exactly what it is, but then that’s not for me to decide now is it.

Well said Bill and in my heart I know you are right.

I still sometimes think though that some sleeping dogs are best left to let lie in case they come back and bite you in the ass! It's a tricky subject.

 

[Fisherman]

Well said Bill and in my heart I know you are right.

I still sometimes think though that some sleeping dogs are best left to let lie in case they come back and bite you in the ass! It's a tricky subject.

I do understand your viewpoint Rob, and I really do think you have a point.
But I sometimes wonder why we are treated so poorly, and I just cannot hang back. Yes we may open a can of worms, but I think it’s time it was opened.
My fear is if we just sit back and accept the crap that is poured down on us from these councils and a totally biased media then things will only get a whole lot worse. The way I see this is, yes action at worse will only accelerate what is going to happen anyway, and inaction can only lead to one outcome. Whereas with action we have a chance to change what looks like being inevitable.

 

[maureenandtom]

Well said Bill and in my heart I know you are right.

I still sometimes think though that some sleeping dogs are best left to let lie in case they come back and bite you in the ass! It's a tricky subject.

Imagine what might happen. Let's say... The council admits it has acted unlawfully and opens the barriers, If, as many seem to believe, this opens the door to encampments of Travellers who behave criminally and whose wrong-doings are ignored by the criminal justice system then who gets the blame?

Likely it would be those who campaigned that this council should abide by the law. And we become targets because we enabled the criminals. And the entire motorhomer population gets blamed because I'd, me alone, thought to challenge the council?

No I'd not thought of that one. But I have now. And it;'s an uncomfortable thought. Does it mean that self-interest should tale precedence over the rule of law - what I see as he rule of law. I might be wrong - maybe the council is not guilty of unlawful discrimination.

 

[Robmac]

Imagine what might happen. Let's say... The council admits it has acted unlawfully and opens the barriers, If, as many seem to believe, this opens the door to encampments of Travellers who behave criminally and whose wrong-doings are ignored by the criminal justice system then who gets the blame?

Likely it would be those who campaigned that this council should abide by the law. And we become targets because we enabled the criminals. And the entire motorhomer population gets blamed because I'd, me alone, thought to challenge the council?

No I'd not thought of that one. But I have now. And it;'s an uncomfortable thought. Does it mean that self-interest should tale precedence over the rule of law - what I see as he rule of law. I might be wrong - maybe the council is not guilty of unlawful discrimination.

The council could indeed be found guilty of breaking the law for stating the reasons they put the barriers in place, I don't know to be honest. That doesn't mean that they won't at some point reinstate them for some other concocted reason. There are some big egos amongst councils, and do I think they would hold a grudge - probably. And of course they would have the backup of a lot of their constituents.

However, I am not a campaigner, not just regarding wildcamping but in most walks of life. I find it to be a bit like p***ing in the wind, so I will watch with interest and see what actually happens.

For what it's worth, I hope you are successful in any action you take.

 

[Rolyan57]

Thank you. That's an excellent reason for not doing anything and a good reason too for not supporting those who might.

The council spokesman said the height barriers were in response to criminal behaviour from Travellers. The effect of the barriers is to exclude all Travcllers in high sided vehicles and this, he states, is his intention – to protect communities and businesses from Traveller criminal behaviour. I think this makes them discriminatory and in contravention of legislation. Had he said, like all other councils before him, that the barriers were in response to rubbish left by motorhomers and substantial numbers of complaints from residents then he would have been in the clear No discrimination. But he didn't. He wishes to provide protection from Travllers. So excludes all who might be Travellers.

The Commissioner for Human Rights wrote to the Speakers of the House of Commons and House of Lords on 1st July this year on a subject we've discussed here before. I quote from his letter:

“While the government can legitimately pursue actions to prevent public disorder, crime or nuisance, these should be clearly circumscribed, and any measures taken in this respect should be proportionate and non-discriminatory “
https://rm.coe.int/letter-to-rt-hon-sir-lindsay-hoyle-mp-speaker-of-the-house-of-commons-/1680a305a3

I can find no evidence, though I've searched, that makes the council action anything other than unlawful. On the other hand I can find lots of evidence that their action has no lawful basis.

Can I ask? You believe the council action is legal. Is this just instinct? Nothing wrong with instinct – very often it proves to be accurate. But it would be grand if you could explain why the council is not being discriminatory against an ethnic minority? Not only grand but very useful because the council will now have to wriggle (if should someone complain to it) and somehow explain how they do not contravene equality legislation.

Please? Your evidence?

As I’ve explained before, in my opinion this Council have not acted unlawfully.

I’m still rather surprised why you seem so intent on continually questioning me, rather than tackling the Council itself. If you believe they have acted unlawfully, challenge them. While accepting that others may have a different opinion to you.

 

[Val54]

I'm not local to the area but I'm confused as to why a Council spokesperson commented on height barriers erected on a car park that appears to be owned/managed by the Holkham Estate?

 

[REC]

I'm not local to the area but I'm confused as to why a Council spokesperson commented on height barriers erected on a car park that appears to be owned/managed by the Holkham Estate?

I was confused about this too. But I suppose the Norfolk Council has height barriers at their car park also, and my complaint was that there was NOWHERE to park in Wells for us. The Weeks council clerk has forwarded my complaint to " the car park operators" so hopefully Holkham will reply. I passed the beach road carpark (is that the same as Queen Anne's Drive?,) and could see no barriers there. My original post was really to warn others not to waste time stopping....but if others are willing to take the issue up, they have my full support.

 

[Rolyan57]

It always worries me when laymen talk about legality.
I tend to leave my health to medical professionals, my plumbing to a good plumber, and any legal matters to those qualified to deal with such matters.
But I have nothing against instinct, and a sense of injustice.
And when I hear of councils banning law abiding, tax paying, on the whole elderly people, who have worked hard all of their lives due to the actions of some diametrically opposed to us, that sense of injustice comes right to the fore.

May I respectfully request that you look at this from a less dispassionate viewpoint, and allow any sense of possible injustice to flourish. Because for people like us that’s all we have.

Just imagine this council attempted to ban cyclists, dog walkers, or any other group, There would be a public outcry, and therein lies my sense of injustice. Instead of that outcry we have people talking about legalities, when this has more to do with a moral injustice. And legal or iIlegal there are times when that sense of moral injustice, should take precedence and eventually become a legal injustice. Which in my honest opinion that’s exactly what it is, but then that’s not for me to decide now is it.

I think you misunderstand me Bill.

I fully understand a feeling of injustice amongst motorhomers, just as I understand normal, law abiding, tax paying members of society who are desperate to avoid these criminals descending again.

My point has always been that if someone genuinely believes that it’s definitely unlawful, then there are processes to follow, which would result in this being changed.

Whereas those who believe it’s lawful but ‘desperately unfair’ will have to try a different approach. Preferably one that doesn’t start with “we’re victims of a huge conspiracy”.

 

[Fisherman]

I think you misunderstand me Bill.

I fully understand a feeling of injustice amongst motorhomers, just as I understand normal, law abiding, tax paying members of society who are desperate to avoid these criminals descending again.

My point has always been that if someone genuinely believes that it’s definitely unlawful, then there are processes to follow, which would result in this being changed.

Whereas those who believe it’s lawful but ‘desperately unfair’ will have to try a different approach. Preferably one that doesn’t start with “we’re victims of a huge conspiracy”.

I wouldn't say that we are the victims of any conspiracy.
I would say that we are the victims of vindictive narrow minded, ill-informed nimbys, who know very little about us, and base their judgement in many cases by how we are portrayed in the media. An ex poster on here quoted a case which summed up our predicament.
Whilst on a meet with around thirty other vans in St Andrews he took his dog for an early morning walk.
He met a lady who was not aware that he was one of the motorhome owners.
They got chatting about his dog, then the conversation changed to discussion about the motorhomes several hundred yards away.
The lady stated that they scared her and made her feel unsafe.
She assumed that they were travellers about to wreck the place.
But when she was informed who he was and why they were there, she changed her tune.
Also the night before a very large order was placed at the local chippy for hundreds of pounds of food.
He also reckoned that several thousand pounds had been spent in the town.
Sadly the chippy won't be able to receive such an order again, because St Andrews bans all motorhomes from overnighting.

Also Tom has done more to support our cause than anyone I know.
If he wants to take a back seat and let others (some are taking up this matter), then I reckon he is entitled to.

 

[Rolyan57]

So do I. No one is specifically saying Tom should do this or that.

I agree it’s bad when people get the wrong impression about motorhomers (although I understand their fear). I agree that the media is partly to blame for the fear. I believe motorhome rental and sale companies are partly responsible, by telling new owners/renters that they can camp anywhere etc. Add to that irresponsible motorhomers (owners and renters) and there are more problems to come. But surely those aren’t the issue here.

Im just not convinced that what the Council did was unlawful. So my suggestion to those in general (not individuals) that tried to insist that it was, was to challenge it via the legal process.

Other than that I’m sure we’re almost on the same page.

 

[Fisherman]

So do I. No one is specifically saying Tom should do this or that.

I agree it’s bad when people get the wrong impression about motorhomers (although I understand their fear). I agree that the media is partly to blame for the fear. I believe motorhome rental and sale companies are partly responsible, by telling new owners/renters that they can camp anywhere etc. Add to that irresponsible motorhomers (owners and renters) and there are more problems to come. But surely those aren’t the issue here.

Im just not convinced that what the Council did was unlawful. So my suggestion to those in general (not individuals) that tried to insist that it was, was to challenge it via the legal process.

Other than that I’m sure we’re almost on the same page.

I don’t claim to fully comprehend the legality or otherwise of what what was done. But I do think that the council were wrong to do what they did.
Yes obviously we have some idiots amongst us, but then so do other groups who are not prevented from using some public car parks.
And other than through ignorance I don’t understand their fear.
Much of this fear comes from what they have read and watched on tv.

 

[vindiboy]

We have just spent 3 nights on a CCC THS in Wells next the Sea at a school in Polka Road, I saw numerous Motorhomes parked in this road and other side streets also on the the road out to the beach where the Little train ran, it all looked easy enough to park for the day to me?

 

[Rolyan57]

I don’t claim to fully comprehend the legality or otherwise of what what was done. But I do think that the council were wrong to do what they did.
Yes obviously we have some idiots amongst us, but then so do other groups who are not prevented from using some public car parks.
And other than through ignorance I don’t understand their fear.
Much of this fear comes from what they have read and watched on tv.

I know this isn’t a popular thought, but have you considered the possibility that it’s as simple as has been discussed.

That the problem is simply a council responding to genuine fears of another takeover by Travellers (who’s travels and potential destinations are tracked and reported), with all the violence, crime, intimidation and extreme social upheaval that came with it.

That motorhomers as we know them have not been targeted and that we’re simply collateral damage caused by the initial problem.

Just a thought.

 

[maureenandtom]

I know this isn’t a popular thought, but have you considered the possibility that it’s as simple as has been discussed.
That the problem is simply a council responding to genuine fears of another takeover by Travellers (who’s travels and potential destinations are tracked and reported), with all the violence, crime, intimidation and extreme social upheaval that came with it.
That motorhomers as we know them have not been targeted and that we’re simply collateral damage caused by the initial problem.

Just a thought.

But not an original thought. See Post No 24 above (or below even)

They become guilty of racial discrimination, even if they include us, as soon as they admit their target is the Traveller. We are simply collateral damage in their Final Solution to the Traveller Problem.

Not an original thought!

You are simply argumentative. and of no help on either side of the debate.

If you are to quote someone else's words and opinions then you should at the very least credit the originator - not try to pass them off as your own.