Comments (100)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:41am Tue 17 Jun 14

ThinkBrighton says...

The Council could raise an anti social behaviour order against travellers or an exclusion notice which bans them from setting up camp, why hasn't this been done
The Council could raise an anti social behaviour order against travellers or an exclusion notice which bans them from setting up camp, why hasn't this been done ThinkBrighton
  • Score: 37

9:59am Tue 17 Jun 14

makoshark says...

Am I wrong in my understanding that Section 61 also clearly defines a maximum of 6 collective vehicles upon any given location before automatic removal laws can be enforced?
Am I wrong in my understanding that Section 61 also clearly defines a maximum of 6 collective vehicles upon any given location before automatic removal laws can be enforced? makoshark
  • Score: 23

10:02am Tue 17 Jun 14

cynic_the says...

"I don't have those figures to hand".

I'd be sacked if I went to a meeting unprepared for such an obvious question.
"I don't have those figures to hand". I'd be sacked if I went to a meeting unprepared for such an obvious question. cynic_the
  • Score: 48

10:09am Tue 17 Jun 14

fredflintstone1 says...

So Cllr Kitcat comes along to a live webcast and can't even give any figures as to how much this merry-go-round is costing? Clearly not a man on top of his brief - or it is that he just don't want to highlight the massive budget overspend in this area?

He might also like to explain why the Council never apparently seeks costs when it comes to evictions etc., as these people have property with them worth tens of thousands of pounds, and some are said to own houses in Ireland.
So Cllr Kitcat comes along to a live webcast and can't even give any figures as to how much this merry-go-round is costing? Clearly not a man on top of his brief - or it is that he just don't want to highlight the massive budget overspend in this area? He might also like to explain why the Council never apparently seeks costs when it comes to evictions etc., as these people have property with them worth tens of thousands of pounds, and some are said to own houses in Ireland. fredflintstone1
  • Score: 65

10:10am Tue 17 Jun 14

Stoves says...

Why is it OK for people top be racist towards Travellers? Is it really such a big issue? they come, the park and leave. Then the council clean up after them. So what?
Why is it OK for people top be racist towards Travellers? Is it really such a big issue? they come, the park and leave. Then the council clean up after them. So what? Stoves
  • Score: -97

10:15am Tue 17 Jun 14

kopite_rob says...

So Kitkats first response is by building more facilities it will stop illegal encampments.
Yet the current facility was reported as having only one occupant when the latest debacle started.
It wouldn't make any difference if there was 100 pitches, why pay rent when you can park for free.
So Kitkats first response is by building more facilities it will stop illegal encampments. Yet the current facility was reported as having only one occupant when the latest debacle started. It wouldn't make any difference if there was 100 pitches, why pay rent when you can park for free. kopite_rob
  • Score: 49

10:17am Tue 17 Jun 14

J_Brightonandhove says...

The most pathetic, weak willed answers from a poor, weak Council leader. Traveller sympathy in it's droves but no real concern for those hard working, tax paying residents who have to put up with their illegal activities.

'It can't be an easy life..' I'm sorry Jason?! There are plenty of people struggling in this city who still manage to pay tax and abide by the laws that you should be worried about and trying to help!

Why on earth can't you realise that travellers see Brighton as an easy stay, no real issues and guaranteed 2 weeks staying in our parks. Time for a tough stance, check their vehicles are insured or taxed, start using section 61 notices as in my personal opinion, intimidating groups of travellers in parks close to where parents take children is certainly anti-social behaviour.

I'm genuinely quite staggered at what poor, pathetic excuses Jason's given. Not long now till you're in the political dustbin
The most pathetic, weak willed answers from a poor, weak Council leader. Traveller sympathy in it's droves but no real concern for those hard working, tax paying residents who have to put up with their illegal activities. 'It can't be an easy life..' I'm sorry Jason?! There are plenty of people struggling in this city who still manage to pay tax and abide by the laws that you should be worried about and trying to help! Why on earth can't you realise that travellers see Brighton as an easy stay, no real issues and guaranteed 2 weeks staying in our parks. Time for a tough stance, check their vehicles are insured or taxed, start using section 61 notices as in my personal opinion, intimidating groups of travellers in parks close to where parents take children is certainly anti-social behaviour. I'm genuinely quite staggered at what poor, pathetic excuses Jason's given. Not long now till you're in the political dustbin J_Brightonandhove
  • Score: 79

10:18am Tue 17 Jun 14

oldskool_raver says...

Have the travellers just moved onto Carden park as Preston Park and Stanmer Park are going to be used for the 'Take Part Sport Activity Festival'? If someone books up a 'sports fixture' on Carden Park does that mean they will be made to leave?
Have the travellers just moved onto Carden park as Preston Park and Stanmer Park are going to be used for the 'Take Part Sport Activity Festival'? If someone books up a 'sports fixture' on Carden Park does that mean they will be made to leave? oldskool_raver
  • Score: 28

10:18am Tue 17 Jun 14

Stoves says...

kopite_rob wrote:
So Kitkats first response is by building more facilities it will stop illegal encampments.
Yet the current facility was reported as having only one occupant when the latest debacle started.
It wouldn't make any difference if there was 100 pitches, why pay rent when you can park for free.
why do you care? please can you explain how this will impact on your life?
[quote][p][bold]kopite_rob[/bold] wrote: So Kitkats first response is by building more facilities it will stop illegal encampments. Yet the current facility was reported as having only one occupant when the latest debacle started. It wouldn't make any difference if there was 100 pitches, why pay rent when you can park for free.[/p][/quote]why do you care? please can you explain how this will impact on your life? Stoves
  • Score: -67

10:20am Tue 17 Jun 14

PorkyChopper says...

Stoves wrote:
Why is it OK for people top be racist towards Travellers? Is it really such a big issue? they come, the park and leave. Then the council clean up after them. So what?
"Racism" doesn't come into it. Unless the people who are complaining are a different race to the travellers, and are complaining simply because of their race.
[quote][p][bold]Stoves[/bold] wrote: Why is it OK for people top be racist towards Travellers? Is it really such a big issue? they come, the park and leave. Then the council clean up after them. So what?[/p][/quote]"Racism" doesn't come into it. Unless the people who are complaining are a different race to the travellers, and are complaining simply because of their race. PorkyChopper
  • Score: 38

10:20am Tue 17 Jun 14

J_Brightonandhove says...

kopite_rob wrote:
So Kitkats first response is by building more facilities it will stop illegal encampments. Yet the current facility was reported as having only one occupant when the latest debacle started. It wouldn't make any difference if there was 100 pitches, why pay rent when you can park for free.
Exactly,

But Jason needs something ludicrous to spend our money on and he's chosen this now he's finished vandalising our roads with bus and cycle lanes and 20mph signs!
[quote][p][bold]kopite_rob[/bold] wrote: So Kitkats first response is by building more facilities it will stop illegal encampments. Yet the current facility was reported as having only one occupant when the latest debacle started. It wouldn't make any difference if there was 100 pitches, why pay rent when you can park for free.[/p][/quote]Exactly, But Jason needs something ludicrous to spend our money on and he's chosen this now he's finished vandalising our roads with bus and cycle lanes and 20mph signs! J_Brightonandhove
  • Score: 47

10:24am Tue 17 Jun 14

oldskool_raver says...

Stoves wrote:
kopite_rob wrote:
So Kitkats first response is by building more facilities it will stop illegal encampments.
Yet the current facility was reported as having only one occupant when the latest debacle started.
It wouldn't make any difference if there was 100 pitches, why pay rent when you can park for free.
why do you care? please can you explain how this will impact on your life?
It impacts on people lives when they can't take their children for a walk in Stanmer Park without the fear of being run over by members of the travelling community who are racing quad bikes through the woods.
It also impacts peoples life when they have to look at the rubbish they've just fly tipped from the back of their vans.
It's an impact on peoples lives when they have to go and retrieve their child's bike from members of the travelling community who think its fine to take it. Shall I find some more examples of the impact?
[quote][p][bold]Stoves[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kopite_rob[/bold] wrote: So Kitkats first response is by building more facilities it will stop illegal encampments. Yet the current facility was reported as having only one occupant when the latest debacle started. It wouldn't make any difference if there was 100 pitches, why pay rent when you can park for free.[/p][/quote]why do you care? please can you explain how this will impact on your life?[/p][/quote]It impacts on people lives when they can't take their children for a walk in Stanmer Park without the fear of being run over by members of the travelling community who are racing quad bikes through the woods. It also impacts peoples life when they have to look at the rubbish they've just fly tipped from the back of their vans. It's an impact on peoples lives when they have to go and retrieve their child's bike from members of the travelling community who think its fine to take it. Shall I find some more examples of the impact? oldskool_raver
  • Score: 84

10:26am Tue 17 Jun 14

Roundbill says...

Mister Kitcat, do you feel it's appropriate for Caroline Lucas to make statements to the media revealing that she has asked you why you haven't resolved the drainage problems at Horsdean? Surely this is a conversation which should be held away from the public eye?
Mister Kitcat, do you feel it's appropriate for Caroline Lucas to make statements to the media revealing that she has asked you why you haven't resolved the drainage problems at Horsdean? Surely this is a conversation which should be held away from the public eye? Roundbill
  • Score: 5

10:27am Tue 17 Jun 14

Stoves says...

oldskool_raver wrote:
Stoves wrote:
kopite_rob wrote:
So Kitkats first response is by building more facilities it will stop illegal encampments.
Yet the current facility was reported as having only one occupant when the latest debacle started.
It wouldn't make any difference if there was 100 pitches, why pay rent when you can park for free.
why do you care? please can you explain how this will impact on your life?
It impacts on people lives when they can't take their children for a walk in Stanmer Park without the fear of being run over by members of the travelling community who are racing quad bikes through the woods.
It also impacts peoples life when they have to look at the rubbish they've just fly tipped from the back of their vans.
It's an impact on peoples lives when they have to go and retrieve their child's bike from members of the travelling community who think its fine to take it. Shall I find some more examples of the impact?
Yes please - but ensure to keep them all factual like above.

Does any of this impact on your life or are you just generalising against a minority, cause it makes you look clever?

Where are they meant to to go?

I have never really had an issue with travellers and i am not sure you have any facts to base your bigoted claims on?!?!?
[quote][p][bold]oldskool_raver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stoves[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kopite_rob[/bold] wrote: So Kitkats first response is by building more facilities it will stop illegal encampments. Yet the current facility was reported as having only one occupant when the latest debacle started. It wouldn't make any difference if there was 100 pitches, why pay rent when you can park for free.[/p][/quote]why do you care? please can you explain how this will impact on your life?[/p][/quote]It impacts on people lives when they can't take their children for a walk in Stanmer Park without the fear of being run over by members of the travelling community who are racing quad bikes through the woods. It also impacts peoples life when they have to look at the rubbish they've just fly tipped from the back of their vans. It's an impact on peoples lives when they have to go and retrieve their child's bike from members of the travelling community who think its fine to take it. Shall I find some more examples of the impact?[/p][/quote]Yes please - but ensure to keep them all factual like above. Does any of this impact on your life or are you just generalising against a minority, cause it makes you look clever? Where are they meant to to go? I have never really had an issue with travellers and i am not sure you have any facts to base your bigoted claims on?!?!? Stoves
  • Score: -77

10:27am Tue 17 Jun 14

acidpod says...

Quote JK "It would be impossible to apply and it is wrong to suggest that all groups of travellers cause antisocial behaviour. "
Camping on public parks is by definition anti social as far as the settled community is concerned! My kids can't walk back from school through Preston Park, and they cannot play. If I drive my Campervan on there for a little holiday, will I be given a few days whilst you get a court order to move me? You have to realise locals are losing patience with your democratic approach here. Travellers do not have the right to make encampments on the little premium green space that is there for us all, and their doing so exposes their selfish attitude. This is not to do with having nowhere to go, it's just doing what they want to do. Rubbish..sort it out or the Green council will suffer at the next elections.
Quote JK "It would be impossible to apply and it is wrong to suggest that all groups of travellers cause antisocial behaviour. " Camping on public parks is by definition anti social as far as the settled community is concerned! My kids can't walk back from school through Preston Park, and they cannot play. If I drive my Campervan on there for a little holiday, will I be given a few days whilst you get a court order to move me? You have to realise locals are losing patience with your democratic approach here. Travellers do not have the right to make encampments on the little premium green space that is there for us all, and their doing so exposes their selfish attitude. This is not to do with having nowhere to go, it's just doing what they want to do. Rubbish..sort it out or the Green council will suffer at the next elections. acidpod
  • Score: 60

10:31am Tue 17 Jun 14

fredflintstone1 says...

It's obviously not just the costs that Cllr Kitcat won't address. He obviously chooses to ignore the byelaws relating to this city's parks that could address this situation. The following sections apply:

22. A person shall not in the pleasure ground (= park) wilfully obstruct, disturb, interrupt, or annoy any other person in the proper use of the pleasure ground, or wilfully obstruct, disturb, or interrupt any authorised officer in the proper execution of his duty, or of any work in the connexion with the laying out or maintenance of the pleasure ground.

There is an existing remedy:
27. Every person who shall infringe any bylaw for the regulation of the pleasure ground may be removed therefrom by any officer of the council, authorised by them in writing to enforce these bylaws, or by any constable, in any one of the several cases hereinafter specified : that is to say-
(i) Where the infraction of the byelaw is committed within the view of such officer or constable, and the name and residence of the person infringing the bylaw are unknown to and cannot be readily ascertained by such an officer or constable.

So please explain, Cllr Kitcat, why are these vehicles allowed to desecrate our parks, in breach of existing legislation? Instead of carrying out assessment, the council officers should be moving them immediately off the land, should they not?
It's obviously not just the costs that Cllr Kitcat won't address. He obviously chooses to ignore the byelaws relating to this city's parks that could address this situation. The following sections apply: 22. A person shall not in the pleasure ground (= park) wilfully obstruct, disturb, interrupt, or annoy any other person in the proper use of the pleasure ground, or wilfully obstruct, disturb, or interrupt any authorised officer in the proper execution of his duty, or of any work in the connexion with the laying out or maintenance of the pleasure ground. There is an existing remedy: 27. Every person who shall infringe any bylaw for the regulation of the pleasure ground may be removed therefrom by any officer of the council, authorised by them in writing to enforce these bylaws, or by any constable, in any one of the several cases hereinafter specified : that is to say- (i) Where the infraction of the byelaw is committed within the view of such officer or constable, and the name and residence of the person infringing the bylaw are unknown to and cannot be readily ascertained by such an officer or constable. So please explain, Cllr Kitcat, why are these vehicles allowed to desecrate our parks, in breach of existing legislation? Instead of carrying out assessment, the council officers should be moving them immediately off the land, should they not? fredflintstone1
  • Score: 42

10:31am Tue 17 Jun 14

J_Brightonandhove says...

Stoves wrote:
Why is it OK for people top be racist towards Travellers? Is it really such a big issue? they come, the park and leave. Then the council clean up after them. So what?
Because what they're doing is illegal and with no regard for TAX PAYING people who use the land they're illegally staying on. If you're so keen on the idea though, how about you rent your garden and driveway to a couple of caravans? I mean, what's the problem? They park, they stay and then they go right?

It also is a terrible advert for tourists coming into Brighton whether you like it or not. It's also not racist, I'd say exactly the same whoever was camped on public parks
[quote][p][bold]Stoves[/bold] wrote: Why is it OK for people top be racist towards Travellers? Is it really such a big issue? they come, the park and leave. Then the council clean up after them. So what?[/p][/quote]Because what they're doing is illegal and with no regard for TAX PAYING people who use the land they're illegally staying on. If you're so keen on the idea though, how about you rent your garden and driveway to a couple of caravans? I mean, what's the problem? They park, they stay and then they go right? It also is a terrible advert for tourists coming into Brighton whether you like it or not. It's also not racist, I'd say exactly the same whoever was camped on public parks J_Brightonandhove
  • Score: 64

10:35am Tue 17 Jun 14

tooned_in says...

Travellers are human beings and deserve to be treated with respect but in my opinion these camps on our community green spaces should be dispersed immediately.
They do not pay takes for these spaces like ourselves so of course there is uproar when local families & sports groups lose these facilities to illegal camps.
Playing with my nephew in our local park my father was approached by a young traveller (10yrs old approx) who promptly informed him they would have to leave as the travellers were closing the park for the night? also a number of scheduled kids footie matches where cancelled as there were 15 trailers parked on the pitch......UPHOLD HUMAN RIGHTS BUT DEFEND YOUR TAX PAYING PUBLIC. it is after all settled folk that are voting you in!!!!
Travellers are human beings and deserve to be treated with respect but in my opinion these camps on our community green spaces should be dispersed immediately. They do not pay takes for these spaces like ourselves so of course there is uproar when local families & sports groups lose these facilities to illegal camps. Playing with my nephew in our local park my father was approached by a young traveller (10yrs old approx) who promptly informed him they would have to leave as the travellers were closing the park for the night? also a number of scheduled kids footie matches where cancelled as there were 15 trailers parked on the pitch......UPHOLD HUMAN RIGHTS BUT DEFEND YOUR TAX PAYING PUBLIC. it is after all settled folk that are voting you in!!!! tooned_in
  • Score: 51

10:37am Tue 17 Jun 14

oldskool_raver says...

Stoves wrote:
oldskool_raver wrote:
Stoves wrote:
kopite_rob wrote:
So Kitkats first response is by building more facilities it will stop illegal encampments.
Yet the current facility was reported as having only one occupant when the latest debacle started.
It wouldn't make any difference if there was 100 pitches, why pay rent when you can park for free.
why do you care? please can you explain how this will impact on your life?
It impacts on people lives when they can't take their children for a walk in Stanmer Park without the fear of being run over by members of the travelling community who are racing quad bikes through the woods.
It also impacts peoples life when they have to look at the rubbish they've just fly tipped from the back of their vans.
It's an impact on peoples lives when they have to go and retrieve their child's bike from members of the travelling community who think its fine to take it. Shall I find some more examples of the impact?
Yes please - but ensure to keep them all factual like above.

Does any of this impact on your life or are you just generalising against a minority, cause it makes you look clever?

Where are they meant to to go?

I have never really had an issue with travellers and i am not sure you have any facts to base your bigoted claims on?!?!?
They are all factual examples. That have all impacted on my life in the last three weeks. I'm not generalising, simply stating facts that I have witnessed. As to where they should go, perhaps they should start by moving to the traveller site at Horsdean, or stay where they have been for the rest of the year if there is no room.
[quote][p][bold]Stoves[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]oldskool_raver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stoves[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kopite_rob[/bold] wrote: So Kitkats first response is by building more facilities it will stop illegal encampments. Yet the current facility was reported as having only one occupant when the latest debacle started. It wouldn't make any difference if there was 100 pitches, why pay rent when you can park for free.[/p][/quote]why do you care? please can you explain how this will impact on your life?[/p][/quote]It impacts on people lives when they can't take their children for a walk in Stanmer Park without the fear of being run over by members of the travelling community who are racing quad bikes through the woods. It also impacts peoples life when they have to look at the rubbish they've just fly tipped from the back of their vans. It's an impact on peoples lives when they have to go and retrieve their child's bike from members of the travelling community who think its fine to take it. Shall I find some more examples of the impact?[/p][/quote]Yes please - but ensure to keep them all factual like above. Does any of this impact on your life or are you just generalising against a minority, cause it makes you look clever? Where are they meant to to go? I have never really had an issue with travellers and i am not sure you have any facts to base your bigoted claims on?!?!?[/p][/quote]They are all factual examples. That have all impacted on my life in the last three weeks. I'm not generalising, simply stating facts that I have witnessed. As to where they should go, perhaps they should start by moving to the traveller site at Horsdean, or stay where they have been for the rest of the year if there is no room. oldskool_raver
  • Score: 27

10:49am Tue 17 Jun 14

fredflintstone1 says...

Stop dodging the point Cllr Kitcat. Your response is simply untrue. Read section 27 (1) of the quote - it is evident that you don't know what you're talking about. It states there that unknown persons can be removed instantly from a park for infrigning byelaws by a council officer or police officer.

I suspect the truth is that you've never considered this approach, have you??
Stop dodging the point Cllr Kitcat. Your response is simply untrue. Read section 27 (1) of the quote - it is evident that you don't know what you're talking about. It states there that unknown persons can be removed instantly from a park for infrigning byelaws by a council officer or police officer. I suspect the truth is that you've never considered this approach, have you?? fredflintstone1
  • Score: 37

10:49am Tue 17 Jun 14

J_Brightonandhove says...

Mr Kitcat,

When you're spending so much money on removing travellers for them to only drive to the next nearest park and refuse to take any serious action apart from spending more of our money building them a site that they currently don't even use, how on earth can you justify asking the tax payers of Brighton and Hove to pay you MORE money for other projects? Why not take some serious action against these travellers, save money and use that money elsewhere where it's really needed?
Mr Kitcat, When you're spending so much money on removing travellers for them to only drive to the next nearest park and refuse to take any serious action apart from spending more of our money building them a site that they currently don't even use, how on earth can you justify asking the tax payers of Brighton and Hove to pay you MORE money for other projects? Why not take some serious action against these travellers, save money and use that money elsewhere where it's really needed? J_Brightonandhove
  • Score: 44

10:54am Tue 17 Jun 14

acidpod says...

My family are from London, very central. If I choose, as my human right, to visit them, do you think it would be tolerated for me to park my van in Hyde Park..? I was born in Paddington, so it is my homeland.
I was very much part of the free party scene in the 80/90s, and look at the crackdown there..kids cannot gather together for a party! You manage to enforce that! So new age It would be impossible to apply and it is wrong to suggest that all groups of travellers cause antisocial behaviour. do not seem to have the same rights?
I voted Green Party and totally regret it. Lucas is fantastic, but Kitkat is totally useless. Weak in the way that many would accuse the Green Party of being. I won't be voting for them again.
My family are from London, very central. If I choose, as my human right, to visit them, do you think it would be tolerated for me to park my van in Hyde Park..? I was born in Paddington, so it is my homeland. I was very much part of the free party scene in the 80/90s, and look at the crackdown there..kids cannot gather together for a party! You manage to enforce that! So new age It would be impossible to apply and it is wrong to suggest that all groups of travellers cause antisocial behaviour. do not seem to have the same rights? I voted Green Party and totally regret it. Lucas is fantastic, but Kitkat is totally useless. Weak in the way that many would accuse the Green Party of being. I won't be voting for them again. acidpod
  • Score: 29

10:56am Tue 17 Jun 14

wippasnapper says...

If The best solution is to give travellers a permanent site to visit the city then why dote the council provide one from the many hectors they own as a permanent site and to that allow over 100 travellers at any one time – how about the files at the back of Patcham on the top hath of Ladies Mile Field opposite the Asda supermarket and allowing them to enter V the roundabout and to prevent them parking ells where on Ladies Mile Field dig a large ditch with a large embankments, this site would allow in excess of 200 travellers at any one time.
If The best solution is to give travellers a permanent site to visit the city then why dote the council provide one from the many hectors they own as a permanent site and to that allow over 100 travellers at any one time – how about the files at the back of Patcham on the top hath of Ladies Mile Field opposite the Asda supermarket and allowing them to enter V the roundabout and to prevent them parking ells where on Ladies Mile Field dig a large ditch with a large embankments, this site would allow in excess of 200 travellers at any one time. wippasnapper
  • Score: -36

10:57am Tue 17 Jun 14

acidpod says...

Hmm, I pasted something in the middle of my post there, so now it is nonsensical!
Hmm, I pasted something in the middle of my post there, so now it is nonsensical! acidpod
  • Score: 0

11:08am Tue 17 Jun 14

wippasnapper says...

JK made a statement about byelaws once upon a time when Brighton was a mere Town we had a byelaw that made it illegal to park on grass verges et but sins becoming a City these byelaws have not been reinstated so allowing anyone to park freely on our grass verges et i.e. the police have no powers to have people move i.e. I have on many actions reported to the police about car’s and vans parking on the pavement out side the Hikers Rest pub there is also yellow lines on the road but still the police have not power to in fours so you can park where ever you want and the police cant move you on full stop. The council have been asked many time to re in state this byelaw but for unknown reason they seem to be reluctant to do so.
JK made a statement about byelaws once upon a time when Brighton was a mere Town we had a byelaw that made it illegal to park on grass verges et but sins becoming a City these byelaws have not been reinstated so allowing anyone to park freely on our grass verges et i.e. the police have no powers to have people move i.e. I have on many actions reported to the police about car’s and vans parking on the pavement out side the Hikers Rest pub there is also yellow lines on the road but still the police have not power to in fours so you can park where ever you want and the police cant move you on full stop. The council have been asked many time to re in state this byelaw but for unknown reason they seem to be reluctant to do so. wippasnapper
  • Score: 5

11:14am Tue 17 Jun 14

mrs missus says...

You are using deliberately emotive language to say "Fortress Brighton". I welcome the barriers at Hangleton Bottom and Stanmer Park. Put them at the entrances to ALL the parks. They do not create a fortress, but a deterrent to large vehicles, such as caravans. Pedestrians and small cars can still get through. And we (the taxpayers) CAN afford it. After all , you (Green council) have spent a lot more on ineffective 20mph measures and bike lanes bikes ignore.
You are using deliberately emotive language to say "Fortress Brighton". I welcome the barriers at Hangleton Bottom and Stanmer Park. Put them at the entrances to ALL the parks. They do not create a fortress, but a deterrent to large vehicles, such as caravans. Pedestrians and small cars can still get through. And we (the taxpayers) CAN afford it. After all , you (Green council) have spent a lot more on ineffective 20mph measures and bike lanes bikes ignore. mrs missus
  • Score: 41

11:15am Tue 17 Jun 14

jonnix says...

Mr Kitcat suggests tolerance in some places, surely this will just encourage yet more travellers here, he says they are not all guilty of anti social behaviour, if a resident of Brighton routinely defecated in our parks I'm sure they would be prosecuted. The numbers have grown over the past few years because of the craven police and council policies allowing them to stay, sometimes for weeks on "unauthorised" sites. He suggests it must be a difficult life being a traveller being evicted and moved on constantly but it is the life they have chosen.
Mr Kitcat suggests tolerance in some places, surely this will just encourage yet more travellers here, he says they are not all guilty of anti social behaviour, if a resident of Brighton routinely defecated in our parks I'm sure they would be prosecuted. The numbers have grown over the past few years because of the craven police and council policies allowing them to stay, sometimes for weeks on "unauthorised" sites. He suggests it must be a difficult life being a traveller being evicted and moved on constantly but it is the life they have chosen. jonnix
  • Score: 31

11:29am Tue 17 Jun 14

acidpod says...

jonnix wrote:
Mr Kitcat suggests tolerance in some places, surely this will just encourage yet more travellers here, he says they are not all guilty of anti social behaviour, if a resident of Brighton routinely defecated in our parks I'm sure they would be prosecuted. The numbers have grown over the past few years because of the craven police and council policies allowing them to stay, sometimes for weeks on "unauthorised" sites. He suggests it must be a difficult life being a traveller being evicted and moved on constantly but it is the life they have chosen.
Not only the life they have chosen, but they also choose not to use designated sites around the country because they "choose" to be on prime territory in the middle of town that many many people would like to live near and cannot afford! They do not have the right to this, and I do not pity their selfishness. If they stayed on designated sites, they would not be constantly moved on..simple!
[quote][p][bold]jonnix[/bold] wrote: Mr Kitcat suggests tolerance in some places, surely this will just encourage yet more travellers here, he says they are not all guilty of anti social behaviour, if a resident of Brighton routinely defecated in our parks I'm sure they would be prosecuted. The numbers have grown over the past few years because of the craven police and council policies allowing them to stay, sometimes for weeks on "unauthorised" sites. He suggests it must be a difficult life being a traveller being evicted and moved on constantly but it is the life they have chosen.[/p][/quote]Not only the life they have chosen, but they also choose not to use designated sites around the country because they "choose" to be on prime territory in the middle of town that many many people would like to live near and cannot afford! They do not have the right to this, and I do not pity their selfishness. If they stayed on designated sites, they would not be constantly moved on..simple! acidpod
  • Score: 37

11:43am Tue 17 Jun 14

Eugenius says...

J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Mr Kitcat,

When you're spending so much money on removing travellers for them to only drive to the next nearest park and refuse to take any serious action apart from spending more of our money building them a site that they currently don't even use, how on earth can you justify asking the tax payers of Brighton and Hove to pay you MORE money for other projects? Why not take some serious action against these travellers, save money and use that money elsewhere where it's really needed?
Almost all the money for "projects" is grant-funded from central government for specific purposes so cannot be legally transferred, but the good news is that the council did apply for and secure a £1.7m government grant to redevelop the Horsdean site and add additional pitches up there. The Tories on the council supported this at the time, the National Park have given their backing, but frustratingly, Eric Pickles has now been asked to sit on it by his chums down here so we're stuck.
[quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: Mr Kitcat, When you're spending so much money on removing travellers for them to only drive to the next nearest park and refuse to take any serious action apart from spending more of our money building them a site that they currently don't even use, how on earth can you justify asking the tax payers of Brighton and Hove to pay you MORE money for other projects? Why not take some serious action against these travellers, save money and use that money elsewhere where it's really needed?[/p][/quote]Almost all the money for "projects" is grant-funded from central government for specific purposes so cannot be legally transferred, but the good news is that the council did apply for and secure a £1.7m government grant to redevelop the Horsdean site and add additional pitches up there. The Tories on the council supported this at the time, the National Park have given their backing, but frustratingly, Eric Pickles has now been asked to sit on it by his chums down here so we're stuck. Eugenius
  • Score: -29

11:54am Tue 17 Jun 14

J_Brightonandhove says...

Eugenius wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote: Mr Kitcat, When you're spending so much money on removing travellers for them to only drive to the next nearest park and refuse to take any serious action apart from spending more of our money building them a site that they currently don't even use, how on earth can you justify asking the tax payers of Brighton and Hove to pay you MORE money for other projects? Why not take some serious action against these travellers, save money and use that money elsewhere where it's really needed?
Almost all the money for "projects" is grant-funded from central government for specific purposes so cannot be legally transferred, but the good news is that the council did apply for and secure a £1.7m government grant to redevelop the Horsdean site and add additional pitches up there. The Tories on the council supported this at the time, the National Park have given their backing, but frustratingly, Eric Pickles has now been asked to sit on it by his chums down here so we're stuck.
I'm well aware but who pays for the maintenance/upkeep? The staff to help run it? Who pays for the repairs? The government certainly don't keep funding it throughout it's life!! We do! Don't try and fool everyone by saying this is a simple case of obtaining a government grant because the future costs of it lie with us
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: Mr Kitcat, When you're spending so much money on removing travellers for them to only drive to the next nearest park and refuse to take any serious action apart from spending more of our money building them a site that they currently don't even use, how on earth can you justify asking the tax payers of Brighton and Hove to pay you MORE money for other projects? Why not take some serious action against these travellers, save money and use that money elsewhere where it's really needed?[/p][/quote]Almost all the money for "projects" is grant-funded from central government for specific purposes so cannot be legally transferred, but the good news is that the council did apply for and secure a £1.7m government grant to redevelop the Horsdean site and add additional pitches up there. The Tories on the council supported this at the time, the National Park have given their backing, but frustratingly, Eric Pickles has now been asked to sit on it by his chums down here so we're stuck.[/p][/quote]I'm well aware but who pays for the maintenance/upkeep? The staff to help run it? Who pays for the repairs? The government certainly don't keep funding it throughout it's life!! We do! Don't try and fool everyone by saying this is a simple case of obtaining a government grant because the future costs of it lie with us J_Brightonandhove
  • Score: 24

12:10pm Tue 17 Jun 14

rolivan says...

Eugenius wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Mr Kitcat,

When you're spending so much money on removing travellers for them to only drive to the next nearest park and refuse to take any serious action apart from spending more of our money building them a site that they currently don't even use, how on earth can you justify asking the tax payers of Brighton and Hove to pay you MORE money for other projects? Why not take some serious action against these travellers, save money and use that money elsewhere where it's really needed?
Almost all the money for "projects" is grant-funded from central government for specific purposes so cannot be legally transferred, but the good news is that the council did apply for and secure a £1.7m government grant to redevelop the Horsdean site and add additional pitches up there. The Tories on the council supported this at the time, the National Park have given their backing, but frustratingly, Eric Pickles has now been asked to sit on it by his chums down here so we're stuck.
You are deluded if you think that even if these pitches were available the people that are currently going from park to park would pay . I noticed that a person was fined for cutting a padlock gave his address as Burgess Hill and yet chooses to stay in a park what do you make of That?
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: Mr Kitcat, When you're spending so much money on removing travellers for them to only drive to the next nearest park and refuse to take any serious action apart from spending more of our money building them a site that they currently don't even use, how on earth can you justify asking the tax payers of Brighton and Hove to pay you MORE money for other projects? Why not take some serious action against these travellers, save money and use that money elsewhere where it's really needed?[/p][/quote]Almost all the money for "projects" is grant-funded from central government for specific purposes so cannot be legally transferred, but the good news is that the council did apply for and secure a £1.7m government grant to redevelop the Horsdean site and add additional pitches up there. The Tories on the council supported this at the time, the National Park have given their backing, but frustratingly, Eric Pickles has now been asked to sit on it by his chums down here so we're stuck.[/p][/quote]You are deluded if you think that even if these pitches were available the people that are currently going from park to park would pay . I noticed that a person was fined for cutting a padlock gave his address as Burgess Hill and yet chooses to stay in a park what do you make of That? rolivan
  • Score: 26

12:16pm Tue 17 Jun 14

fredflintstone1 says...

Eugenius wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Mr Kitcat,

When you're spending so much money on removing travellers for them to only drive to the next nearest park and refuse to take any serious action apart from spending more of our money building them a site that they currently don't even use, how on earth can you justify asking the tax payers of Brighton and Hove to pay you MORE money for other projects? Why not take some serious action against these travellers, save money and use that money elsewhere where it's really needed?
Almost all the money for "projects" is grant-funded from central government for specific purposes so cannot be legally transferred, but the good news is that the council did apply for and secure a £1.7m government grant to redevelop the Horsdean site and add additional pitches up there. The Tories on the council supported this at the time, the National Park have given their backing, but frustratingly, Eric Pickles has now been asked to sit on it by his chums down here so we're stuck.
I think if you look back and stop playing politics, you'll see it's a matter of ensuring the city's water supply is safeguarded from pollution. Something I would have thought would have been close to the heart of a true Green.

This is something that the Victorians safeguarded - it wouldn't matter if the proposal was for a traveller site or a 5 star hotel there. People like you give politicians a bad name, trying to score cheap points.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: Mr Kitcat, When you're spending so much money on removing travellers for them to only drive to the next nearest park and refuse to take any serious action apart from spending more of our money building them a site that they currently don't even use, how on earth can you justify asking the tax payers of Brighton and Hove to pay you MORE money for other projects? Why not take some serious action against these travellers, save money and use that money elsewhere where it's really needed?[/p][/quote]Almost all the money for "projects" is grant-funded from central government for specific purposes so cannot be legally transferred, but the good news is that the council did apply for and secure a £1.7m government grant to redevelop the Horsdean site and add additional pitches up there. The Tories on the council supported this at the time, the National Park have given their backing, but frustratingly, Eric Pickles has now been asked to sit on it by his chums down here so we're stuck.[/p][/quote]I think if you look back and stop playing politics, you'll see it's a matter of ensuring the city's water supply is safeguarded from pollution. Something I would have thought would have been close to the heart of a true Green. This is something that the Victorians safeguarded - it wouldn't matter if the proposal was for a traveller site or a 5 star hotel there. People like you give politicians a bad name, trying to score cheap points. fredflintstone1
  • Score: 21

12:16pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Oh Please!!!! says...

Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?
Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open? Oh Please!!!!
  • Score: 16

12:21pm Tue 17 Jun 14

fredflintstone1 says...

Oh Please!!!! wrote:
Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?
There's no reason at all why they can't be moderated rather than being censored.
[quote][p][bold]Oh Please!!!![/bold] wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?[/p][/quote]There's no reason at all why they can't be moderated rather than being censored. fredflintstone1
  • Score: 15

12:28pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Oh Please!!!! says...

fredflintstone1 wrote:
Oh Please!!!! wrote:
Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?
There's no reason at all why they can't be moderated rather than being censored.
I agree but they normally close the traveller ones down quickly.
[quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oh Please!!!![/bold] wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?[/p][/quote]There's no reason at all why they can't be moderated rather than being censored.[/p][/quote]I agree but they normally close the traveller ones down quickly. Oh Please!!!!
  • Score: 16

12:30pm Tue 17 Jun 14

RottingdeanRant says...

fredflintstone1 wrote:
Oh Please!!!! wrote:
Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?
There's no reason at all why they can't be moderated rather than being censored.
Not only will they censor this thread but they also censored the questions that were asked and conveniently ignored all the difficult or potentially controversial ones.
[quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oh Please!!!![/bold] wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?[/p][/quote]There's no reason at all why they can't be moderated rather than being censored.[/p][/quote]Not only will they censor this thread but they also censored the questions that were asked and conveniently ignored all the difficult or potentially controversial ones. RottingdeanRant
  • Score: 20

12:34pm Tue 17 Jun 14

rolivan says...

Oh Please!!!! wrote:
Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?
Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.
[quote][p][bold]Oh Please!!!![/bold] wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?[/p][/quote]Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins. rolivan
  • Score: 12

12:39pm Tue 17 Jun 14

cookie_brighton says...

simple answer to the gypsie illegal parking.........ceas
e and impound their vehicles, of what this council would do if any of us, Brighton residents parked illegally anywhere in within the boundaries. The police need to grow a pair and start ceasing vehicles, the gypsies would soon learn not to stick two fingers up at us, hit them in the pocket.
simple answer to the gypsie illegal parking.........ceas e and impound their vehicles, of what this council would do if any of us, Brighton residents parked illegally anywhere in within the boundaries. The police need to grow a pair and start ceasing vehicles, the gypsies would soon learn not to stick two fingers up at us, hit them in the pocket. cookie_brighton
  • Score: 34

12:41pm Tue 17 Jun 14

fredaj says...

What is the point of Jason opening himself up to answer questions from the local community about travellers and then not actually answering them?

This is a total farce.
What is the point of Jason opening himself up to answer questions from the local community about travellers and then not actually answering them? This is a total farce. fredaj
  • Score: 34

12:44pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Eugenius says...

rolivan wrote:
Oh Please!!!! wrote:
Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?
Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.
Keep on smearing. I don't know why for certain why the Argus block comments on travellers stories but I have long suspected it is a blanket policy on all reports involving police involvement and potential prosecutions, simply to cover themselves legally. I'm pleased to see the general issues being debated here on a special feature.
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oh Please!!!![/bold] wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?[/p][/quote]Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.[/p][/quote]Keep on smearing. I don't know why for certain why the Argus block comments on travellers stories but I have long suspected it is a blanket policy on all reports involving police involvement and potential prosecutions, simply to cover themselves legally. I'm pleased to see the general issues being debated here on a special feature. Eugenius
  • Score: -20

12:50pm Tue 17 Jun 14

J_Brightonandhove says...

Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Oh Please!!!! wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?
Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.
Keep on smearing. I don't know why for certain why the Argus block comments on travellers stories but I have long suspected it is a blanket policy on all reports involving police involvement and potential prosecutions, simply to cover themselves legally. I'm pleased to see the general issues being debated here on a special feature.
Why don't you respond to me Eugenius - Who pays for the upkeep of the new site, the repairs, the maintenance etc once the government money has finished? Does the Government grant cover the life of the new site? Or does this come out of Council funds?

Straight answer please
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oh Please!!!![/bold] wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?[/p][/quote]Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.[/p][/quote]Keep on smearing. I don't know why for certain why the Argus block comments on travellers stories but I have long suspected it is a blanket policy on all reports involving police involvement and potential prosecutions, simply to cover themselves legally. I'm pleased to see the general issues being debated here on a special feature.[/p][/quote]Why don't you respond to me Eugenius - Who pays for the upkeep of the new site, the repairs, the maintenance etc once the government money has finished? Does the Government grant cover the life of the new site? Or does this come out of Council funds? Straight answer please J_Brightonandhove
  • Score: 23

1:04pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Eugenius says...

J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Oh Please!!!! wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?
Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.
Keep on smearing. I don't know why for certain why the Argus block comments on travellers stories but I have long suspected it is a blanket policy on all reports involving police involvement and potential prosecutions, simply to cover themselves legally. I'm pleased to see the general issues being debated here on a special feature.
Why don't you respond to me Eugenius - Who pays for the upkeep of the new site, the repairs, the maintenance etc once the government money has finished? Does the Government grant cover the life of the new site? Or does this come out of Council funds?

Straight answer please
Travellers pay a pitch rent at the authorised sites, which includes their council tax contribution and will pay towards the maintenance of the site.
[quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oh Please!!!![/bold] wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?[/p][/quote]Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.[/p][/quote]Keep on smearing. I don't know why for certain why the Argus block comments on travellers stories but I have long suspected it is a blanket policy on all reports involving police involvement and potential prosecutions, simply to cover themselves legally. I'm pleased to see the general issues being debated here on a special feature.[/p][/quote]Why don't you respond to me Eugenius - Who pays for the upkeep of the new site, the repairs, the maintenance etc once the government money has finished? Does the Government grant cover the life of the new site? Or does this come out of Council funds? Straight answer please[/p][/quote]Travellers pay a pitch rent at the authorised sites, which includes their council tax contribution and will pay towards the maintenance of the site. Eugenius
  • Score: -24

1:12pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Fight_Back says...

OK Cllr Kitcat, you claim you wouldn't mind the new traveller site in your area ? There's loads of space west of Carden Avenue opposite Asda - let's use that.
OK Cllr Kitcat, you claim you wouldn't mind the new traveller site in your area ? There's loads of space west of Carden Avenue opposite Asda - let's use that. Fight_Back
  • Score: 12

1:14pm Tue 17 Jun 14

rolivan says...

Eugenius wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Oh Please!!!! wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?
Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.
Keep on smearing. I don't know why for certain why the Argus block comments on travellers stories but I have long suspected it is a blanket policy on all reports involving police involvement and potential prosecutions, simply to cover themselves legally. I'm pleased to see the general issues being debated here on a special feature.
Why don't you respond to me Eugenius - Who pays for the upkeep of the new site, the repairs, the maintenance etc once the government money has finished? Does the Government grant cover the life of the new site? Or does this come out of Council funds?

Straight answer please
Travellers pay a pitch rent at the authorised sites, which includes their council tax contribution and will pay towards the maintenance of the site.
What you mean is any Travellers wanting to use the facilities will pay a fee, and do you think for one minute the Travellers that are using the Parks across the City will want to pay those fees . They go to toilet in the Parks to save expense on Chemicals in their vans so why would they pay for a Site?
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oh Please!!!![/bold] wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?[/p][/quote]Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.[/p][/quote]Keep on smearing. I don't know why for certain why the Argus block comments on travellers stories but I have long suspected it is a blanket policy on all reports involving police involvement and potential prosecutions, simply to cover themselves legally. I'm pleased to see the general issues being debated here on a special feature.[/p][/quote]Why don't you respond to me Eugenius - Who pays for the upkeep of the new site, the repairs, the maintenance etc once the government money has finished? Does the Government grant cover the life of the new site? Or does this come out of Council funds? Straight answer please[/p][/quote]Travellers pay a pitch rent at the authorised sites, which includes their council tax contribution and will pay towards the maintenance of the site.[/p][/quote]What you mean is any Travellers wanting to use the facilities will pay a fee, and do you think for one minute the Travellers that are using the Parks across the City will want to pay those fees . They go to toilet in the Parks to save expense on Chemicals in their vans so why would they pay for a Site? rolivan
  • Score: 23

1:14pm Tue 17 Jun 14

rw1988 says...

"We have worked really hard to win funding from Government" - er the Conservative did the bidding for funding (which it looks as though someone kindly reminded you half way through this web chat) and support your quest for a permanent site - who is playing politics? Conservatives just disagree on location as does it appear the Environment Agency seeing as you have been unable to rectify whatever problems are being caused by the drainage.

"Of the 26 transit sites in our region 23 are in Brighton and Hove" 23 in Patcham and 9 at Bridies Tan. Maths???? There are actually over 50 permanent sites providers over Sussex. 29% of which are local authority or registered providers. There are another 71% of privately owned sites.

How will building sites in other areas help? Encampments cannot be directed from Brighton to Eastbourne or Chichester no matter how many are available.
The transit site, if fully opened caters for 23 which is why, it seems, that the vast majority of unauthorised encampments are greater than this in number. A few that did become separated earlier last week were given a section 62 directing them to the site but by all accounts decided to leave the city. Yes this does show how a transit site can work but also demonstrates that even when offered facilities, they turn them down.

"Travelling communities on designated transit sites are charged rents and other fees" How much compared to the cost of security, electricity and water provided?

"I believe some sites in West Sussex have been closed down in recent years" Why

Carden Primary? People from all walks of life have adapted to the changing world. Many people used to live in houses that are no longer there. Everyone has to move with the times. Many trades are now non existent in all communities, no longer do gypsies just sell lucky heather and clothes pegs and being afraid of being cursed is no longer an issue in todays world.

"Just because in one week some of those pitches were empty does not give a full picture of a year of use" There has rarely been more than three pitches occupied over the last year. Where are all the families that supposedly have this desperate need? Are they currently in one of our parks when there is a pitch available for the majority of them?

"I am not a lawyer, but I understand that a court eviction order must apply to a specific piece of land and a specific group of households. It can't be a generic catch all banning order" Check how Worthing managed to get a six year order.

"if there are smaller encampments, which they tend to be, the police will use there powers to direct them to the transit site" There are very few encampments small enough to direct, it seems that there are alway one or two extra vans present in order to prevent this. In fact one of the small ones that we had for a long time last year, could not be directed after they broke onto and were subsequently evicted from the site over the Christmas period. Will those currently on Carden Park go to the site or leave Brighton?

Gobsmacked that the predictable question of costs would be raised that figures were not to hand!! Or do we not want to advertise them?

Why was the question about the number of appeals not answered?

"I think it is absolutely appalling the Conservatives are calling in the Secretary of State to Halt the Horsdean planning consent" Yes Cllr Theobald called for a permanent site in the same way you are but has always been against this location. Not because its in his ward but because of the very real risk to Brightons drinking water. Am totally amazed that the Green party are not the ones against a site here. You are very well aware of the risks as I understand that the site is currently limited in its capacity by the Environment Agency due the the facilities being inadequate (Labour Fail -ooh slapped wrist no politics here) and a higher level of occupation would present an unacceptable risk to the water.

Sanitation - " After an encampment is evicted we have specialist teams come in to clear up." Waterhall, Stanmer, especially - do they really search through every shrub and bush? The health dept advise children and animals not to use the site for up to three weeks due to the health hazard.

"We have examined something like a hundred sites to find a suitable site" 50 is the number the council usually quote and the final three included 2 over the drinking water supply and one which is not actually available!!!! Misleading!!!!

"I would have no problem with it if it was my own ward" followed by "I don't think city centre sites should be tolerated" Lucky for you then Mr K

This all demonstrates the need for new thinking - outside people with new ideas and common sense. There is no need for racism just fairness for all.
"We have worked really hard to win funding from Government" - er the Conservative did the bidding for funding (which it looks as though someone kindly reminded you half way through this web chat) and support your quest for a permanent site - who is playing politics? Conservatives just disagree on location as does it appear the Environment Agency seeing as you have been unable to rectify whatever problems are being caused by the drainage. "Of the 26 transit sites in our region 23 are in Brighton and Hove" 23 in Patcham and 9 at Bridies Tan. Maths???? There are actually over 50 permanent sites providers over Sussex. 29% of which are local authority or registered providers. There are another 71% of privately owned sites. How will building sites in other areas help? Encampments cannot be directed from Brighton to Eastbourne or Chichester no matter how many are available. The transit site, if fully opened caters for 23 which is why, it seems, that the vast majority of unauthorised encampments are greater than this in number. A few that did become separated earlier last week were given a section 62 directing them to the site but by all accounts decided to leave the city. Yes this does show how a transit site can work but also demonstrates that even when offered facilities, they turn them down. "Travelling communities on designated transit sites are charged rents and other fees" How much compared to the cost of security, electricity and water provided? "I believe some sites in West Sussex have been closed down in recent years" Why Carden Primary? People from all walks of life have adapted to the changing world. Many people used to live in houses that are no longer there. Everyone has to move with the times. Many trades are now non existent in all communities, no longer do gypsies just sell lucky heather and clothes pegs and being afraid of being cursed is no longer an issue in todays world. "Just because in one week some of those pitches were empty does not give a full picture of a year of use" There has rarely been more than three pitches occupied over the last year. Where are all the families that supposedly have this desperate need? Are they currently in one of our parks when there is a pitch available for the majority of them? "I am not a lawyer, but I understand that a court eviction order must apply to a specific piece of land and a specific group of households. It can't be a generic catch all banning order" Check how Worthing managed to get a six year order. "if there are smaller encampments, which they tend to be, the police will use there powers to direct them to the transit site" There are very few encampments small enough to direct, it seems that there are alway one or two extra vans present in order to prevent this. In fact one of the small ones that we had for a long time last year, could not be directed after they broke onto and were subsequently evicted from the site over the Christmas period. Will those currently on Carden Park go to the site or leave Brighton? Gobsmacked that the predictable question of costs would be raised that figures were not to hand!! Or do we not want to advertise them? Why was the question about the number of appeals not answered? "I think it is absolutely appalling the Conservatives are calling in the Secretary of State to Halt the Horsdean planning consent" Yes Cllr Theobald called for a permanent site in the same way you are but has always been against this location. Not because its in his ward but because of the very real risk to Brightons drinking water. Am totally amazed that the Green party are not the ones against a site here. You are very well aware of the risks as I understand that the site is currently limited in its capacity by the Environment Agency due the the facilities being inadequate (Labour Fail -ooh slapped wrist no politics here) and a higher level of occupation would present an unacceptable risk to the water. Sanitation - " After an encampment is evicted we have specialist teams come in to clear up." Waterhall, Stanmer, especially - do they really search through every shrub and bush? The health dept advise children and animals not to use the site for up to three weeks due to the health hazard. "We have examined something like a hundred sites to find a suitable site" 50 is the number the council usually quote and the final three included 2 over the drinking water supply and one which is not actually available!!!! Misleading!!!! "I would have no problem with it if it was my own ward" followed by "I don't think city centre sites should be tolerated" Lucky for you then Mr K This all demonstrates the need for new thinking - outside people with new ideas and common sense. There is no need for racism just fairness for all. rw1988
  • Score: 22

1:14pm Tue 17 Jun 14

simps46 says...

all travellers are not anti-social !!!???? what planet is KitKat on??? he certainly isn't on the Brighton and Hove one.does he not realise that everyone is p****d off with this situation
all travellers are not anti-social !!!???? what planet is KitKat on??? he certainly isn't on the Brighton and Hove one.does he not realise that everyone is p****d off with this situation simps46
  • Score: 26

1:26pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Eugenius says...

rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Oh Please!!!! wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?
Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.
Keep on smearing. I don't know why for certain why the Argus block comments on travellers stories but I have long suspected it is a blanket policy on all reports involving police involvement and potential prosecutions, simply to cover themselves legally. I'm pleased to see the general issues being debated here on a special feature.
Why don't you respond to me Eugenius - Who pays for the upkeep of the new site, the repairs, the maintenance etc once the government money has finished? Does the Government grant cover the life of the new site? Or does this come out of Council funds?

Straight answer please
Travellers pay a pitch rent at the authorised sites, which includes their council tax contribution and will pay towards the maintenance of the site.
What you mean is any Travellers wanting to use the facilities will pay a fee, and do you think for one minute the Travellers that are using the Parks across the City will want to pay those fees . They go to toilet in the Parks to save expense on Chemicals in their vans so why would they pay for a Site?
It's a strategy which has worked in other towns. Bristol saved £195,000 a year on evicting travellers from unauthorised camps after they invested in improvements to their authorised site.
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oh Please!!!![/bold] wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?[/p][/quote]Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.[/p][/quote]Keep on smearing. I don't know why for certain why the Argus block comments on travellers stories but I have long suspected it is a blanket policy on all reports involving police involvement and potential prosecutions, simply to cover themselves legally. I'm pleased to see the general issues being debated here on a special feature.[/p][/quote]Why don't you respond to me Eugenius - Who pays for the upkeep of the new site, the repairs, the maintenance etc once the government money has finished? Does the Government grant cover the life of the new site? Or does this come out of Council funds? Straight answer please[/p][/quote]Travellers pay a pitch rent at the authorised sites, which includes their council tax contribution and will pay towards the maintenance of the site.[/p][/quote]What you mean is any Travellers wanting to use the facilities will pay a fee, and do you think for one minute the Travellers that are using the Parks across the City will want to pay those fees . They go to toilet in the Parks to save expense on Chemicals in their vans so why would they pay for a Site?[/p][/quote]It's a strategy which has worked in other towns. Bristol saved £195,000 a year on evicting travellers from unauthorised camps after they invested in improvements to their authorised site. Eugenius
  • Score: -15

1:30pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Man of steel says...

Having read the relevent sections of The Criminal Justice and Public
Order Act 1994, I wonder why it is not being used correctly.
Under sections 77-80 of the 1994 Act, local authorities may direct persons who are unlawfully residing in vehicles on land in their own area to leave. These powers extend to privately owned land. It is an offence to fail to comply with such a direction or to return within 3 months. A magistrates’ court can make a removal order authorising the local authority to enter the land and remove the persons and vehicles.
Section 61 of the 1994 Act provides a potentially even more draconian power for the police to remove Gypsies and Travellers where the landowner or occupier has taken reasonable steps and where one of three criteria are satisfied. Failure to obey such a direction or returning to the land in question within three months is not only an offence but can result in arrest and impoundment of vehicles (i.e. the Gypsies’ and Travellers’ homes), even before a magistrates’ court order has been obtained.
Section 61 provides:
‘(1) If the senior police officer present at the scene reasonably believes that two or more persons are trespassing on land and are present there with the common purpose of residing there for any period, that reasonable steps have been taken by or on behalf of the occupier to ask them to leave and -
(a) that any of those persons has caused damage to the land or to property on the land or used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour
towards the occupier, a member of his family or an employee or agent of
his, or (b) that those persons have between them six or more vehicles on the land, he may direct those persons, or any of them, to leave the land and to remove any vehicles or other property they have with them on the land.’
So both sections 61 and 77-80 are in force for 3 months, not 3 minutes as seems to be the case in Brighton, there is no need for further studies, if they return the police can arrest them and impound their vehicles.
I'll ask the question again, why is this not being done in Brighton?
Having read the relevent sections of The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, I wonder why it is not being used correctly. Under sections 77-80 of the 1994 Act, local authorities may direct persons who are unlawfully residing in vehicles on land in their own area to leave. These powers extend to privately owned land. It is an offence to fail to comply with such a direction or to return within 3 months. A magistrates’ court can make a removal order authorising the local authority to enter the land and remove the persons and vehicles. Section 61 of the 1994 Act provides a potentially even more draconian power for the police to remove Gypsies and Travellers where the landowner or occupier has taken reasonable steps and where one of three criteria are satisfied. Failure to obey such a direction or returning to the land in question within three months is not only an offence but can result in arrest and impoundment of vehicles (i.e. the Gypsies’ and Travellers’ homes), even before a magistrates’ court order has been obtained. Section 61 provides: ‘(1) If the senior police officer present at the scene reasonably believes that two or more persons are trespassing on land and are present there with the common purpose of residing there for any period, that reasonable steps have been taken by or on behalf of the occupier to ask them to leave and - (a) that any of those persons has caused damage to the land or to property on the land or used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards the occupier, a member of his family or an employee or agent of his, or (b) that those persons have between them six or more vehicles on the land, he may direct those persons, or any of them, to leave the land and to remove any vehicles or other property they have with them on the land.’ So both sections 61 and 77-80 are in force for 3 months, not 3 minutes as seems to be the case in Brighton, there is no need for further studies, if they return the police can arrest them and impound their vehicles. I'll ask the question again, why is this not being done in Brighton? Man of steel
  • Score: 23

1:38pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Phani Tikkala says...

I'm still puzzled as to why there are anonymous comments on here which clearly are made either by people working for the council (maybe as an unofficial green mouthpiece) or even possibly councillors.

When is the Ragus going to do an IP log search to find out and expose exactly whether or not the green "defenders" actually work for the council?
I'm still puzzled as to why there are anonymous comments on here which clearly are made either by people working for the council (maybe as an unofficial green mouthpiece) or even possibly councillors. When is the Ragus going to do an IP log search to find out and expose exactly whether or not the green "defenders" actually work for the council? Phani Tikkala
  • Score: 10

1:38pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Eugenius says...

This is from the central government Department for Communities and Local Government official advice document - Local authorities and Gypsies and Travellers:

Bristol City Council: Site provision saves taxpayers’ money

Bristol City Council was established as a unitary authority in 1996. At that time it had no publicly run Gypsy and Traveller sites, although the City has a long history of Gypsy residents. It experienced massive levels of unauthorised camping (20 or more encampments per year of up to 50 caravans each) resulting in huge spending on enforcement and clean up costs – up to £300,000 per year with an average of around £200,000 per year.
In 1998 the authority resolved to adopt a “spend to save” policy and decided to establish a residential and transit site using its own resources – Government grant was not then available. Later that year having identified some suitable sites it sought planning permission for a residential and transit site. The transit site got planning permission and cost around £425,000 to build. Following the provision of the site the council’s enforcement costs reduced to around £5,000 per year.
As such, with a saving of over £190,000 per year in eviction costs, the cost of developing the transit site has already paid for itself.
In addition, the Council continued to look for alternative sites to locate their
proposed residential site and bought suitable land in 2000. The Council got £1.5 million from Communities and Local Government’s Gypsy and Traveller Sites Grant and the South Liberty Lane was opened in 2006.
This is from the central government Department for Communities and Local Government official advice document - Local authorities and Gypsies and Travellers: Bristol City Council: Site provision saves taxpayers’ money Bristol City Council was established as a unitary authority in 1996. At that time it had no publicly run Gypsy and Traveller sites, although the City has a long history of Gypsy residents. It experienced massive levels of unauthorised camping (20 or more encampments per year of up to 50 caravans each) resulting in huge spending on enforcement and clean up costs – up to £300,000 per year with an average of around £200,000 per year. In 1998 the authority resolved to adopt a “spend to save” policy and decided to establish a residential and transit site using its own resources – Government grant was not then available. Later that year having identified some suitable sites it sought planning permission for a residential and transit site. The transit site got planning permission and cost around £425,000 to build. Following the provision of the site the council’s enforcement costs reduced to around £5,000 per year. As such, with a saving of over £190,000 per year in eviction costs, the cost of developing the transit site has already paid for itself. In addition, the Council continued to look for alternative sites to locate their proposed residential site and bought suitable land in 2000. The Council got £1.5 million from Communities and Local Government’s Gypsy and Traveller Sites Grant and the South Liberty Lane was opened in 2006. Eugenius
  • Score: -14

1:39pm Tue 17 Jun 14

rolivan says...

Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Oh Please!!!! wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?
Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.
Keep on smearing. I don't know why for certain why the Argus block comments on travellers stories but I have long suspected it is a blanket policy on all reports involving police involvement and potential prosecutions, simply to cover themselves legally. I'm pleased to see the general issues being debated here on a special feature.
Why don't you respond to me Eugenius - Who pays for the upkeep of the new site, the repairs, the maintenance etc once the government money has finished? Does the Government grant cover the life of the new site? Or does this come out of Council funds?

Straight answer please
Travellers pay a pitch rent at the authorised sites, which includes their council tax contribution and will pay towards the maintenance of the site.
What you mean is any Travellers wanting to use the facilities will pay a fee, and do you think for one minute the Travellers that are using the Parks across the City will want to pay those fees . They go to toilet in the Parks to save expense on Chemicals in their vans so why would they pay for a Site?
It's a strategy which has worked in other towns. Bristol saved £195,000 a year on evicting travellers from unauthorised camps after they invested in improvements to their authorised site.
They saved £195,000 but what did it Cost, isn't the bill for the City over £1million and rising?
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oh Please!!!![/bold] wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?[/p][/quote]Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.[/p][/quote]Keep on smearing. I don't know why for certain why the Argus block comments on travellers stories but I have long suspected it is a blanket policy on all reports involving police involvement and potential prosecutions, simply to cover themselves legally. I'm pleased to see the general issues being debated here on a special feature.[/p][/quote]Why don't you respond to me Eugenius - Who pays for the upkeep of the new site, the repairs, the maintenance etc once the government money has finished? Does the Government grant cover the life of the new site? Or does this come out of Council funds? Straight answer please[/p][/quote]Travellers pay a pitch rent at the authorised sites, which includes their council tax contribution and will pay towards the maintenance of the site.[/p][/quote]What you mean is any Travellers wanting to use the facilities will pay a fee, and do you think for one minute the Travellers that are using the Parks across the City will want to pay those fees . They go to toilet in the Parks to save expense on Chemicals in their vans so why would they pay for a Site?[/p][/quote]It's a strategy which has worked in other towns. Bristol saved £195,000 a year on evicting travellers from unauthorised camps after they invested in improvements to their authorised site.[/p][/quote]They saved £195,000 but what did it Cost, isn't the bill for the City over £1million and rising? rolivan
  • Score: 12

1:41pm Tue 17 Jun 14

rw1988 says...

Eugenius wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Mr Kitcat,

When you're spending so much money on removing travellers for them to only drive to the next nearest park and refuse to take any serious action apart from spending more of our money building them a site that they currently don't even use, how on earth can you justify asking the tax payers of Brighton and Hove to pay you MORE money for other projects? Why not take some serious action against these travellers, save money and use that money elsewhere where it's really needed?
Almost all the money for "projects" is grant-funded from central government for specific purposes so cannot be legally transferred, but the good news is that the council did apply for and secure a £1.7m government grant to redevelop the Horsdean site and add additional pitches up there. The Tories on the council supported this at the time, the National Park have given their backing, but frustratingly, Eric Pickles has now been asked to sit on it by his chums down here so we're stuck.
The Conservatives applied for and obtained the grant, this council only requested its transfer. The Conservatives were against this site since its inception and for good reason. The are categorically not against a site, just not at Horsdean or Waterhall near the pumping station on land that the council only owns as it was purchased, with foresight, generations ago, in order to prevent any development, not just traveller sites, in order to protect the drinking water supply for Brighton and surrounding areas.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: Mr Kitcat, When you're spending so much money on removing travellers for them to only drive to the next nearest park and refuse to take any serious action apart from spending more of our money building them a site that they currently don't even use, how on earth can you justify asking the tax payers of Brighton and Hove to pay you MORE money for other projects? Why not take some serious action against these travellers, save money and use that money elsewhere where it's really needed?[/p][/quote]Almost all the money for "projects" is grant-funded from central government for specific purposes so cannot be legally transferred, but the good news is that the council did apply for and secure a £1.7m government grant to redevelop the Horsdean site and add additional pitches up there. The Tories on the council supported this at the time, the National Park have given their backing, but frustratingly, Eric Pickles has now been asked to sit on it by his chums down here so we're stuck.[/p][/quote]The Conservatives applied for and obtained the grant, this council only requested its transfer. The Conservatives were against this site since its inception and for good reason. The are categorically not against a site, just not at Horsdean or Waterhall near the pumping station on land that the council only owns as it was purchased, with foresight, generations ago, in order to prevent any development, not just traveller sites, in order to protect the drinking water supply for Brighton and surrounding areas. rw1988
  • Score: 12

1:43pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Vigilia says...

Eugenius wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Oh Please!!!! wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?
Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.
Keep on smearing. I don't know why for certain why the Argus block comments on travellers stories but I have long suspected it is a blanket policy on all reports involving police involvement and potential prosecutions, simply to cover themselves legally. I'm pleased to see the general issues being debated here on a special feature.
Why don't you respond to me Eugenius - Who pays for the upkeep of the new site, the repairs, the maintenance etc once the government money has finished? Does the Government grant cover the life of the new site? Or does this come out of Council funds?

Straight answer please
Travellers pay a pitch rent at the authorised sites, which includes their council tax contribution and will pay towards the maintenance of the site.
What dream world are you living in?
We taxpayers have been subsidising the Horsdean site to the tune of over £700 a day for years.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oh Please!!!![/bold] wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?[/p][/quote]Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.[/p][/quote]Keep on smearing. I don't know why for certain why the Argus block comments on travellers stories but I have long suspected it is a blanket policy on all reports involving police involvement and potential prosecutions, simply to cover themselves legally. I'm pleased to see the general issues being debated here on a special feature.[/p][/quote]Why don't you respond to me Eugenius - Who pays for the upkeep of the new site, the repairs, the maintenance etc once the government money has finished? Does the Government grant cover the life of the new site? Or does this come out of Council funds? Straight answer please[/p][/quote]Travellers pay a pitch rent at the authorised sites, which includes their council tax contribution and will pay towards the maintenance of the site.[/p][/quote]What dream world are you living in? We taxpayers have been subsidising the Horsdean site to the tune of over £700 a day for years. Vigilia
  • Score: 21

1:54pm Tue 17 Jun 14

rw1988 says...

Eugenius wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Oh Please!!!! wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?
Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.
Keep on smearing. I don't know why for certain why the Argus block comments on travellers stories but I have long suspected it is a blanket policy on all reports involving police involvement and potential prosecutions, simply to cover themselves legally. I'm pleased to see the general issues being debated here on a special feature.
Why don't you respond to me Eugenius - Who pays for the upkeep of the new site, the repairs, the maintenance etc once the government money has finished? Does the Government grant cover the life of the new site? Or does this come out of Council funds?

Straight answer please
Travellers pay a pitch rent at the authorised sites, which includes their council tax contribution and will pay towards the maintenance of the site.
After the near £100k for security alone and with only 1 to 3 pitches let over the past several months this maybe wishful thinking. Even at full capacity, it doesn't cover the running costs of approximately £700 per day
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oh Please!!!![/bold] wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?[/p][/quote]Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.[/p][/quote]Keep on smearing. I don't know why for certain why the Argus block comments on travellers stories but I have long suspected it is a blanket policy on all reports involving police involvement and potential prosecutions, simply to cover themselves legally. I'm pleased to see the general issues being debated here on a special feature.[/p][/quote]Why don't you respond to me Eugenius - Who pays for the upkeep of the new site, the repairs, the maintenance etc once the government money has finished? Does the Government grant cover the life of the new site? Or does this come out of Council funds? Straight answer please[/p][/quote]Travellers pay a pitch rent at the authorised sites, which includes their council tax contribution and will pay towards the maintenance of the site.[/p][/quote]After the near £100k for security alone and with only 1 to 3 pitches let over the past several months this maybe wishful thinking. Even at full capacity, it doesn't cover the running costs of approximately £700 per day rw1988
  • Score: 21

1:55pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Oh Please!!!! says...

Vigilia wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Oh Please!!!! wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?
Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.
Keep on smearing. I don't know why for certain why the Argus block comments on travellers stories but I have long suspected it is a blanket policy on all reports involving police involvement and potential prosecutions, simply to cover themselves legally. I'm pleased to see the general issues being debated here on a special feature.
Why don't you respond to me Eugenius - Who pays for the upkeep of the new site, the repairs, the maintenance etc once the government money has finished? Does the Government grant cover the life of the new site? Or does this come out of Council funds?

Straight answer please
Travellers pay a pitch rent at the authorised sites, which includes their council tax contribution and will pay towards the maintenance of the site.
What dream world are you living in?
We taxpayers have been subsidising the Horsdean site to the tune of over £700 a day for years.
£700 a day? where does that figure come from! If true its madness
[quote][p][bold]Vigilia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oh Please!!!![/bold] wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?[/p][/quote]Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.[/p][/quote]Keep on smearing. I don't know why for certain why the Argus block comments on travellers stories but I have long suspected it is a blanket policy on all reports involving police involvement and potential prosecutions, simply to cover themselves legally. I'm pleased to see the general issues being debated here on a special feature.[/p][/quote]Why don't you respond to me Eugenius - Who pays for the upkeep of the new site, the repairs, the maintenance etc once the government money has finished? Does the Government grant cover the life of the new site? Or does this come out of Council funds? Straight answer please[/p][/quote]Travellers pay a pitch rent at the authorised sites, which includes their council tax contribution and will pay towards the maintenance of the site.[/p][/quote]What dream world are you living in? We taxpayers have been subsidising the Horsdean site to the tune of over £700 a day for years.[/p][/quote]£700 a day? where does that figure come from! If true its madness Oh Please!!!!
  • Score: 0

1:56pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Eugenius says...

rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Oh Please!!!! wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?
Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.
Keep on smearing. I don't know why for certain why the Argus block comments on travellers stories but I have long suspected it is a blanket policy on all reports involving police involvement and potential prosecutions, simply to cover themselves legally. I'm pleased to see the general issues being debated here on a special feature.
Why don't you respond to me Eugenius - Who pays for the upkeep of the new site, the repairs, the maintenance etc once the government money has finished? Does the Government grant cover the life of the new site? Or does this come out of Council funds?

Straight answer please
Travellers pay a pitch rent at the authorised sites, which includes their council tax contribution and will pay towards the maintenance of the site.
What you mean is any Travellers wanting to use the facilities will pay a fee, and do you think for one minute the Travellers that are using the Parks across the City will want to pay those fees . They go to toilet in the Parks to save expense on Chemicals in their vans so why would they pay for a Site?
It's a strategy which has worked in other towns. Bristol saved £195,000 a year on evicting travellers from unauthorised camps after they invested in improvements to their authorised site.
They saved £195,000 but what did it Cost, isn't the bill for the City over £1million and rising?
Like I said, we won a central government grant of £1.7m to improve the Horsdean site. If the planning approval hadn't been challenged (and with no indication of how much long this referral is going to take) we might have had the new pitches in place in time for the summer, that was the original plan.
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oh Please!!!![/bold] wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?[/p][/quote]Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.[/p][/quote]Keep on smearing. I don't know why for certain why the Argus block comments on travellers stories but I have long suspected it is a blanket policy on all reports involving police involvement and potential prosecutions, simply to cover themselves legally. I'm pleased to see the general issues being debated here on a special feature.[/p][/quote]Why don't you respond to me Eugenius - Who pays for the upkeep of the new site, the repairs, the maintenance etc once the government money has finished? Does the Government grant cover the life of the new site? Or does this come out of Council funds? Straight answer please[/p][/quote]Travellers pay a pitch rent at the authorised sites, which includes their council tax contribution and will pay towards the maintenance of the site.[/p][/quote]What you mean is any Travellers wanting to use the facilities will pay a fee, and do you think for one minute the Travellers that are using the Parks across the City will want to pay those fees . They go to toilet in the Parks to save expense on Chemicals in their vans so why would they pay for a Site?[/p][/quote]It's a strategy which has worked in other towns. Bristol saved £195,000 a year on evicting travellers from unauthorised camps after they invested in improvements to their authorised site.[/p][/quote]They saved £195,000 but what did it Cost, isn't the bill for the City over £1million and rising?[/p][/quote]Like I said, we won a central government grant of £1.7m to improve the Horsdean site. If the planning approval hadn't been challenged (and with no indication of how much long this referral is going to take) we might have had the new pitches in place in time for the summer, that was the original plan. Eugenius
  • Score: -17

1:57pm Tue 17 Jun 14

rw1988 says...

Fight_Back wrote:
OK Cllr Kitcat, you claim you wouldn't mind the new traveller site in your area ? There's loads of space west of Carden Avenue opposite Asda - let's use that.
Not his Ward
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: OK Cllr Kitcat, you claim you wouldn't mind the new traveller site in your area ? There's loads of space west of Carden Avenue opposite Asda - let's use that.[/p][/quote]Not his Ward rw1988
  • Score: 3

2:03pm Tue 17 Jun 14

J_Brightonandhove says...

Eugenius wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Oh Please!!!! wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?
Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.
Keep on smearing. I don't know why for certain why the Argus block comments on travellers stories but I have long suspected it is a blanket policy on all reports involving police involvement and potential prosecutions, simply to cover themselves legally. I'm pleased to see the general issues being debated here on a special feature.
Why don't you respond to me Eugenius - Who pays for the upkeep of the new site, the repairs, the maintenance etc once the government money has finished? Does the Government grant cover the life of the new site? Or does this come out of Council funds? Straight answer please
Travellers pay a pitch rent at the authorised sites, which includes their council tax contribution and will pay towards the maintenance of the site.
Key word being 'towards' - Now please answer the question, who pays the rest?

And I assume they'll be paying the same Council Tax rate as everyone else in the same category?

This time can we have a straight answer please!
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oh Please!!!![/bold] wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?[/p][/quote]Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.[/p][/quote]Keep on smearing. I don't know why for certain why the Argus block comments on travellers stories but I have long suspected it is a blanket policy on all reports involving police involvement and potential prosecutions, simply to cover themselves legally. I'm pleased to see the general issues being debated here on a special feature.[/p][/quote]Why don't you respond to me Eugenius - Who pays for the upkeep of the new site, the repairs, the maintenance etc once the government money has finished? Does the Government grant cover the life of the new site? Or does this come out of Council funds? Straight answer please[/p][/quote]Travellers pay a pitch rent at the authorised sites, which includes their council tax contribution and will pay towards the maintenance of the site.[/p][/quote]Key word being 'towards' - Now please answer the question, who pays the rest? And I assume they'll be paying the same Council Tax rate as everyone else in the same category? This time can we have a straight answer please! J_Brightonandhove
  • Score: 13

2:03pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Fight_Back says...

rw1988 wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
OK Cllr Kitcat, you claim you wouldn't mind the new traveller site in your area ? There's loads of space west of Carden Avenue opposite Asda - let's use that.
Not his Ward
He lives on Carden Hill though.
[quote][p][bold]rw1988[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: OK Cllr Kitcat, you claim you wouldn't mind the new traveller site in your area ? There's loads of space west of Carden Avenue opposite Asda - let's use that.[/p][/quote]Not his Ward[/p][/quote]He lives on Carden Hill though. Fight_Back
  • Score: 7

2:06pm Tue 17 Jun 14

rolivan says...

Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Oh Please!!!! wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?
Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.
Keep on smearing. I don't know why for certain why the Argus block comments on travellers stories but I have long suspected it is a blanket policy on all reports involving police involvement and potential prosecutions, simply to cover themselves legally. I'm pleased to see the general issues being debated here on a special feature.
Why don't you respond to me Eugenius - Who pays for the upkeep of the new site, the repairs, the maintenance etc once the government money has finished? Does the Government grant cover the life of the new site? Or does this come out of Council funds?

Straight answer please
Travellers pay a pitch rent at the authorised sites, which includes their council tax contribution and will pay towards the maintenance of the site.
What you mean is any Travellers wanting to use the facilities will pay a fee, and do you think for one minute the Travellers that are using the Parks across the City will want to pay those fees . They go to toilet in the Parks to save expense on Chemicals in their vans so why would they pay for a Site?
It's a strategy which has worked in other towns. Bristol saved £195,000 a year on evicting travellers from unauthorised camps after they invested in improvements to their authorised site.
They saved £195,000 but what did it Cost, isn't the bill for the City over £1million and rising?
Like I said, we won a central government grant of £1.7m to improve the Horsdean site. If the planning approval hadn't been challenged (and with no indication of how much long this referral is going to take) we might have had the new pitches in place in time for the summer, that was the original plan.
However even if it is allowed which it shouldn't be if there is a problem with groundwater being polluted like the supposed possibility at Balcombe there still will not be enough spaces because another group will arrive.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oh Please!!!![/bold] wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?[/p][/quote]Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.[/p][/quote]Keep on smearing. I don't know why for certain why the Argus block comments on travellers stories but I have long suspected it is a blanket policy on all reports involving police involvement and potential prosecutions, simply to cover themselves legally. I'm pleased to see the general issues being debated here on a special feature.[/p][/quote]Why don't you respond to me Eugenius - Who pays for the upkeep of the new site, the repairs, the maintenance etc once the government money has finished? Does the Government grant cover the life of the new site? Or does this come out of Council funds? Straight answer please[/p][/quote]Travellers pay a pitch rent at the authorised sites, which includes their council tax contribution and will pay towards the maintenance of the site.[/p][/quote]What you mean is any Travellers wanting to use the facilities will pay a fee, and do you think for one minute the Travellers that are using the Parks across the City will want to pay those fees . They go to toilet in the Parks to save expense on Chemicals in their vans so why would they pay for a Site?[/p][/quote]It's a strategy which has worked in other towns. Bristol saved £195,000 a year on evicting travellers from unauthorised camps after they invested in improvements to their authorised site.[/p][/quote]They saved £195,000 but what did it Cost, isn't the bill for the City over £1million and rising?[/p][/quote]Like I said, we won a central government grant of £1.7m to improve the Horsdean site. If the planning approval hadn't been challenged (and with no indication of how much long this referral is going to take) we might have had the new pitches in place in time for the summer, that was the original plan.[/p][/quote]However even if it is allowed which it shouldn't be if there is a problem with groundwater being polluted like the supposed possibility at Balcombe there still will not be enough spaces because another group will arrive. rolivan
  • Score: 7

2:08pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Man of steel says...

Reading further into The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, I find that The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 has introduced a new section 62A into the 1994 Act, and under 62A(1b) A person commits an offence if she/ he enters any land in the area of the relevant local authority as a trespasser before the end of the relevant period with the intention of residing there.’
The ‘relevant period’ is 3 months from the day on which the direction is given.
So not only can they not return to that site for 3 months, they are also forbidden to enter any other council site for 3 months.
Reading further into The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, I find that The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 has introduced a new section 62A into the 1994 Act, and under 62A(1b) A person commits an offence if she/ he enters any land in the area of the relevant local authority as a trespasser before the end of the relevant period with the intention of residing there.’ The ‘relevant period’ is 3 months from the day on which the direction is given. So not only can they not return to that site for 3 months, they are also forbidden to enter any other council site for 3 months. Man of steel
  • Score: 13

2:09pm Tue 17 Jun 14

rw1988 says...

Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Oh Please!!!! wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?
Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.
Keep on smearing. I don't know why for certain why the Argus block comments on travellers stories but I have long suspected it is a blanket policy on all reports involving police involvement and potential prosecutions, simply to cover themselves legally. I'm pleased to see the general issues being debated here on a special feature.
Why don't you respond to me Eugenius - Who pays for the upkeep of the new site, the repairs, the maintenance etc once the government money has finished? Does the Government grant cover the life of the new site? Or does this come out of Council funds?

Straight answer please
Travellers pay a pitch rent at the authorised sites, which includes their council tax contribution and will pay towards the maintenance of the site.
What you mean is any Travellers wanting to use the facilities will pay a fee, and do you think for one minute the Travellers that are using the Parks across the City will want to pay those fees . They go to toilet in the Parks to save expense on Chemicals in their vans so why would they pay for a Site?
It's a strategy which has worked in other towns. Bristol saved £195,000 a year on evicting travellers from unauthorised camps after they invested in improvements to their authorised site.
They saved £195,000 but what did it Cost, isn't the bill for the City over £1million and rising?
Like I said, we won a central government grant of £1.7m to improve the Horsdean site. If the planning approval hadn't been challenged (and with no indication of how much long this referral is going to take) we might have had the new pitches in place in time for the summer, that was the original plan.
NO NO NO - you didn't get the grant - Conservatives did - you just applied for it to be transferred!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oh Please!!!![/bold] wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?[/p][/quote]Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.[/p][/quote]Keep on smearing. I don't know why for certain why the Argus block comments on travellers stories but I have long suspected it is a blanket policy on all reports involving police involvement and potential prosecutions, simply to cover themselves legally. I'm pleased to see the general issues being debated here on a special feature.[/p][/quote]Why don't you respond to me Eugenius - Who pays for the upkeep of the new site, the repairs, the maintenance etc once the government money has finished? Does the Government grant cover the life of the new site? Or does this come out of Council funds? Straight answer please[/p][/quote]Travellers pay a pitch rent at the authorised sites, which includes their council tax contribution and will pay towards the maintenance of the site.[/p][/quote]What you mean is any Travellers wanting to use the facilities will pay a fee, and do you think for one minute the Travellers that are using the Parks across the City will want to pay those fees . They go to toilet in the Parks to save expense on Chemicals in their vans so why would they pay for a Site?[/p][/quote]It's a strategy which has worked in other towns. Bristol saved £195,000 a year on evicting travellers from unauthorised camps after they invested in improvements to their authorised site.[/p][/quote]They saved £195,000 but what did it Cost, isn't the bill for the City over £1million and rising?[/p][/quote]Like I said, we won a central government grant of £1.7m to improve the Horsdean site. If the planning approval hadn't been challenged (and with no indication of how much long this referral is going to take) we might have had the new pitches in place in time for the summer, that was the original plan.[/p][/quote]NO NO NO - you didn't get the grant - Conservatives did - you just applied for it to be transferred!!!!! rw1988
  • Score: 15

2:33pm Tue 17 Jun 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

JK doesn't believe that blocking access to parks is cost effective, yet we spend an absolute fortune evicting travellers every year. Also it's funny how we have CCTV literally everywhere, but not at the entrances to traveller hotspots. Perhaps if we installed CCTV and they breach the defences, they can be prosecuted for criminal damage and breaking and entering.

I think the police are scared of them. If I rocked up to Wild Park with a 100 friends for a holiday, I would expect to be evicted within a few hours - plus have my van searched for contraband. The police certainly don't hold back on kicking people off a site if there is an illegal rave.
JK doesn't believe that blocking access to parks is cost effective, yet we spend an absolute fortune evicting travellers every year. Also it's funny how we have CCTV literally everywhere, but not at the entrances to traveller hotspots. Perhaps if we installed CCTV and they breach the defences, they can be prosecuted for criminal damage and breaking and entering. I think the police are scared of them. If I rocked up to Wild Park with a 100 friends for a holiday, I would expect to be evicted within a few hours - plus have my van searched for contraband. The police certainly don't hold back on kicking people off a site if there is an illegal rave. thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 26

2:47pm Tue 17 Jun 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Oh Please!!!! wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?
Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.
Keep on smearing. I don't know why for certain why the Argus block comments on travellers stories but I have long suspected it is a blanket policy on all reports involving police involvement and potential prosecutions, simply to cover themselves legally. I'm pleased to see the general issues being debated here on a special feature.
Why don't you respond to me Eugenius - Who pays for the upkeep of the new site, the repairs, the maintenance etc once the government money has finished? Does the Government grant cover the life of the new site? Or does this come out of Council funds?

Straight answer please
Travellers pay a pitch rent at the authorised sites, which includes their council tax contribution and will pay towards the maintenance of the site.
What you mean is any Travellers wanting to use the facilities will pay a fee, and do you think for one minute the Travellers that are using the Parks across the City will want to pay those fees . They go to toilet in the Parks to save expense on Chemicals in their vans so why would they pay for a Site?
It's a strategy which has worked in other towns. Bristol saved £195,000 a year on evicting travellers from unauthorised camps after they invested in improvements to their authorised site.
They saved £195,000 but what did it Cost, isn't the bill for the City over £1million and rising?
Like I said, we won a central government grant of £1.7m to improve the Horsdean site. If the planning approval hadn't been challenged (and with no indication of how much long this referral is going to take) we might have had the new pitches in place in time for the summer, that was the original plan.
So who is this "we"? You said you had no connection with the council on another thread.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oh Please!!!![/bold] wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?[/p][/quote]Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.[/p][/quote]Keep on smearing. I don't know why for certain why the Argus block comments on travellers stories but I have long suspected it is a blanket policy on all reports involving police involvement and potential prosecutions, simply to cover themselves legally. I'm pleased to see the general issues being debated here on a special feature.[/p][/quote]Why don't you respond to me Eugenius - Who pays for the upkeep of the new site, the repairs, the maintenance etc once the government money has finished? Does the Government grant cover the life of the new site? Or does this come out of Council funds? Straight answer please[/p][/quote]Travellers pay a pitch rent at the authorised sites, which includes their council tax contribution and will pay towards the maintenance of the site.[/p][/quote]What you mean is any Travellers wanting to use the facilities will pay a fee, and do you think for one minute the Travellers that are using the Parks across the City will want to pay those fees . They go to toilet in the Parks to save expense on Chemicals in their vans so why would they pay for a Site?[/p][/quote]It's a strategy which has worked in other towns. Bristol saved £195,000 a year on evicting travellers from unauthorised camps after they invested in improvements to their authorised site.[/p][/quote]They saved £195,000 but what did it Cost, isn't the bill for the City over £1million and rising?[/p][/quote]Like I said, we won a central government grant of £1.7m to improve the Horsdean site. If the planning approval hadn't been challenged (and with no indication of how much long this referral is going to take) we might have had the new pitches in place in time for the summer, that was the original plan.[/p][/quote]So who is this "we"? You said you had no connection with the council on another thread. thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 16

3:10pm Tue 17 Jun 14

tooned_in says...

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
JK doesn't believe that blocking access to parks is cost effective, yet we spend an absolute fortune evicting travellers every year. Also it's funny how we have CCTV literally everywhere, but not at the entrances to traveller hotspots. Perhaps if we installed CCTV and they breach the defences, they can be prosecuted for criminal damage and breaking and entering.

I think the police are scared of them. If I rocked up to Wild Park with a 100 friends for a holiday, I would expect to be evicted within a few hours - plus have my van searched for contraband. The police certainly don't hold back on kicking people off a site if there is an illegal rave.
You cant prosecute the lawless...arrest them bail them they disappear.
How can you follow up prosecution when you have no fixed address to contact the accused?
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: JK doesn't believe that blocking access to parks is cost effective, yet we spend an absolute fortune evicting travellers every year. Also it's funny how we have CCTV literally everywhere, but not at the entrances to traveller hotspots. Perhaps if we installed CCTV and they breach the defences, they can be prosecuted for criminal damage and breaking and entering. I think the police are scared of them. If I rocked up to Wild Park with a 100 friends for a holiday, I would expect to be evicted within a few hours - plus have my van searched for contraband. The police certainly don't hold back on kicking people off a site if there is an illegal rave.[/p][/quote]You cant prosecute the lawless...arrest them bail them they disappear. How can you follow up prosecution when you have no fixed address to contact the accused? tooned_in
  • Score: 4

3:12pm Tue 17 Jun 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

Stoves wrote:
Why is it OK for people top be racist towards Travellers? Is it really such a big issue? they come, the park and leave. Then the council clean up after them. So what?
Who is being racist? Are white Irish travellers a different race from white Irish non-travellers? Of course not!

Who pays for the clean up? The council or the taxpayer?
[quote][p][bold]Stoves[/bold] wrote: Why is it OK for people top be racist towards Travellers? Is it really such a big issue? they come, the park and leave. Then the council clean up after them. So what?[/p][/quote]Who is being racist? Are white Irish travellers a different race from white Irish non-travellers? Of course not! Who pays for the clean up? The council or the taxpayer? thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 14

3:21pm Tue 17 Jun 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

tooned_in wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
JK doesn't believe that blocking access to parks is cost effective, yet we spend an absolute fortune evicting travellers every year. Also it's funny how we have CCTV literally everywhere, but not at the entrances to traveller hotspots. Perhaps if we installed CCTV and they breach the defences, they can be prosecuted for criminal damage and breaking and entering.

I think the police are scared of them. If I rocked up to Wild Park with a 100 friends for a holiday, I would expect to be evicted within a few hours - plus have my van searched for contraband. The police certainly don't hold back on kicking people off a site if there is an illegal rave.
You cant prosecute the lawless...arrest them bail them they disappear.
How can you follow up prosecution when you have no fixed address to contact the accused?
They must have passports, driving licences etc and many do own property or live on permanent sites. The answer would be not to offer bail - you shouldn't offer bail if someone is likely to abscond. Or to put a price on bail.
[quote][p][bold]tooned_in[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: JK doesn't believe that blocking access to parks is cost effective, yet we spend an absolute fortune evicting travellers every year. Also it's funny how we have CCTV literally everywhere, but not at the entrances to traveller hotspots. Perhaps if we installed CCTV and they breach the defences, they can be prosecuted for criminal damage and breaking and entering. I think the police are scared of them. If I rocked up to Wild Park with a 100 friends for a holiday, I would expect to be evicted within a few hours - plus have my van searched for contraband. The police certainly don't hold back on kicking people off a site if there is an illegal rave.[/p][/quote]You cant prosecute the lawless...arrest them bail them they disappear. How can you follow up prosecution when you have no fixed address to contact the accused?[/p][/quote]They must have passports, driving licences etc and many do own property or live on permanent sites. The answer would be not to offer bail - you shouldn't offer bail if someone is likely to abscond. Or to put a price on bail. thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 9

4:40pm Tue 17 Jun 14

stumpyshimmans says...

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Oh Please!!!! wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?
Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.
Keep on smearing. I don't know why for certain why the Argus block comments on travellers stories but I have long suspected it is a blanket policy on all reports involving police involvement and potential prosecutions, simply to cover themselves legally. I'm pleased to see the general issues being debated here on a special feature.
Why don't you respond to me Eugenius - Who pays for the upkeep of the new site, the repairs, the maintenance etc once the government money has finished? Does the Government grant cover the life of the new site? Or does this come out of Council funds?

Straight answer please
Travellers pay a pitch rent at the authorised sites, which includes their council tax contribution and will pay towards the maintenance of the site.
What you mean is any Travellers wanting to use the facilities will pay a fee, and do you think for one minute the Travellers that are using the Parks across the City will want to pay those fees . They go to toilet in the Parks to save expense on Chemicals in their vans so why would they pay for a Site?
It's a strategy which has worked in other towns. Bristol saved £195,000 a year on evicting travellers from unauthorised camps after they invested in improvements to their authorised site.
They saved £195,000 but what did it Cost, isn't the bill for the City over £1million and rising?
Like I said, we won a central government grant of £1.7m to improve the Horsdean site. If the planning approval hadn't been challenged (and with no indication of how much long this referral is going to take) we might have had the new pitches in place in time for the summer, that was the original plan.
So who is this "we"? You said you had no connection with the council on another thread.
Who is "He" is it JK or HJArrs?
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oh Please!!!![/bold] wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?[/p][/quote]Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.[/p][/quote]Keep on smearing. I don't know why for certain why the Argus block comments on travellers stories but I have long suspected it is a blanket policy on all reports involving police involvement and potential prosecutions, simply to cover themselves legally. I'm pleased to see the general issues being debated here on a special feature.[/p][/quote]Why don't you respond to me Eugenius - Who pays for the upkeep of the new site, the repairs, the maintenance etc once the government money has finished? Does the Government grant cover the life of the new site? Or does this come out of Council funds? Straight answer please[/p][/quote]Travellers pay a pitch rent at the authorised sites, which includes their council tax contribution and will pay towards the maintenance of the site.[/p][/quote]What you mean is any Travellers wanting to use the facilities will pay a fee, and do you think for one minute the Travellers that are using the Parks across the City will want to pay those fees . They go to toilet in the Parks to save expense on Chemicals in their vans so why would they pay for a Site?[/p][/quote]It's a strategy which has worked in other towns. Bristol saved £195,000 a year on evicting travellers from unauthorised camps after they invested in improvements to their authorised site.[/p][/quote]They saved £195,000 but what did it Cost, isn't the bill for the City over £1million and rising?[/p][/quote]Like I said, we won a central government grant of £1.7m to improve the Horsdean site. If the planning approval hadn't been challenged (and with no indication of how much long this referral is going to take) we might have had the new pitches in place in time for the summer, that was the original plan.[/p][/quote]So who is this "we"? You said you had no connection with the council on another thread.[/p][/quote]Who is "He" is it JK or HJArrs? stumpyshimmans
  • Score: 7

4:46pm Tue 17 Jun 14

makoshark says...

Eugenius wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Oh Please!!!! wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?
Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.
Keep on smearing. I don't know why for certain why the Argus block comments on travellers stories but I have long suspected it is a blanket policy on all reports involving police involvement and potential prosecutions, simply to cover themselves legally. I'm pleased to see the general issues being debated here on a special feature.
Why don't you respond to me Eugenius - Who pays for the upkeep of the new site, the repairs, the maintenance etc once the government money has finished? Does the Government grant cover the life of the new site? Or does this come out of Council funds?

Straight answer please
Travellers pay a pitch rent at the authorised sites, which includes their council tax contribution and will pay towards the maintenance of the site.
When the permanent site was first opened, within days the majority of fixtures and fittings had been ripped out of the shower block and presumably sold to fund 'other needs' by the then traveller residents... Who then disappeared leaving the 'good old B&H ratepayers to fund the £15K plus bill... (and how many times has this been repeated since ???)

I'd love to see the REAL accounts for the ongoing overhead cost of this site and of course the TRUE cost to ratepayers of dealing with this perpetual problem... but naturally, they will never be published in such a format but always have an alternative spin put upon them...
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oh Please!!!![/bold] wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?[/p][/quote]Not until Eugenius or another Green Party supporter makes a report . TheCountdown begins.[/p][/quote]Keep on smearing. I don't know why for certain why the Argus block comments on travellers stories but I have long suspected it is a blanket policy on all reports involving police involvement and potential prosecutions, simply to cover themselves legally. I'm pleased to see the general issues being debated here on a special feature.[/p][/quote]Why don't you respond to me Eugenius - Who pays for the upkeep of the new site, the repairs, the maintenance etc once the government money has finished? Does the Government grant cover the life of the new site? Or does this come out of Council funds? Straight answer please[/p][/quote]Travellers pay a pitch rent at the authorised sites, which includes their council tax contribution and will pay towards the maintenance of the site.[/p][/quote]When the permanent site was first opened, within days the majority of fixtures and fittings had been ripped out of the shower block and presumably sold to fund 'other needs' by the then traveller residents... Who then disappeared leaving the 'good old B&H ratepayers to fund the £15K plus bill... (and how many times has this been repeated since ???) I'd love to see the REAL accounts for the ongoing overhead cost of this site and of course the TRUE cost to ratepayers of dealing with this perpetual problem... but naturally, they will never be published in such a format but always have an alternative spin put upon them... makoshark
  • Score: 16

5:03pm Tue 17 Jun 14

stumpyshimmans says...

Phani Tikkala wrote:
I'm still puzzled as to why there are anonymous comments on here which clearly are made either by people working for the council (maybe as an unofficial green mouthpiece) or even possibly councillors.

When is the Ragus going to do an IP log search to find out and expose exactly whether or not the green "defenders" actually work for the council?
Is JK eugenics or HJArrs ?
[quote][p][bold]Phani Tikkala[/bold] wrote: I'm still puzzled as to why there are anonymous comments on here which clearly are made either by people working for the council (maybe as an unofficial green mouthpiece) or even possibly councillors. When is the Ragus going to do an IP log search to find out and expose exactly whether or not the green "defenders" actually work for the council?[/p][/quote]Is JK eugenics or HJArrs ? stumpyshimmans
  • Score: 7

5:22pm Tue 17 Jun 14

stumpyshimmans says...

fredflintstone1 wrote:
It's obviously not just the costs that Cllr Kitcat won't address. He obviously chooses to ignore the byelaws relating to this city's parks that could address this situation. The following sections apply:

22. A person shall not in the pleasure ground (= park) wilfully obstruct, disturb, interrupt, or annoy any other person in the proper use of the pleasure ground, or wilfully obstruct, disturb, or interrupt any authorised officer in the proper execution of his duty, or of any work in the connexion with the laying out or maintenance of the pleasure ground.

There is an existing remedy:
27. Every person who shall infringe any bylaw for the regulation of the pleasure ground may be removed therefrom by any officer of the council, authorised by them in writing to enforce these bylaws, or by any constable, in any one of the several cases hereinafter specified : that is to say-
(i) Where the infraction of the byelaw is committed within the view of such officer or constable, and the name and residence of the person infringing the bylaw are unknown to and cannot be readily ascertained by such an officer or constable.

So please explain, Cllr Kitcat, why are these vehicles allowed to desecrate our parks, in breach of existing legislation? Instead of carrying out assessment, the council officers should be moving them immediately off the land, should they not?
Three weeks previous as published in the Argus a gentleman parked his car in the Disabled area & was fined! Did you Travellers receive the same justice? NO!
[quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: It's obviously not just the costs that Cllr Kitcat won't address. He obviously chooses to ignore the byelaws relating to this city's parks that could address this situation. The following sections apply: 22. A person shall not in the pleasure ground (= park) wilfully obstruct, disturb, interrupt, or annoy any other person in the proper use of the pleasure ground, or wilfully obstruct, disturb, or interrupt any authorised officer in the proper execution of his duty, or of any work in the connexion with the laying out or maintenance of the pleasure ground. There is an existing remedy: 27. Every person who shall infringe any bylaw for the regulation of the pleasure ground may be removed therefrom by any officer of the council, authorised by them in writing to enforce these bylaws, or by any constable, in any one of the several cases hereinafter specified : that is to say- (i) Where the infraction of the byelaw is committed within the view of such officer or constable, and the name and residence of the person infringing the bylaw are unknown to and cannot be readily ascertained by such an officer or constable. So please explain, Cllr Kitcat, why are these vehicles allowed to desecrate our parks, in breach of existing legislation? Instead of carrying out assessment, the council officers should be moving them immediately off the land, should they not?[/p][/quote]Three weeks previous as published in the Argus a gentleman parked his car in the Disabled area & was fined! Did you Travellers receive the same justice? NO! stumpyshimmans
  • Score: 13

6:10pm Tue 17 Jun 14

L bailey says...

Travellers and gypsies are far from stupid. They know if an eviction order has been granted to remove them on Friday if they go of their own accord on Thursday they can return to the site vacated within a few days or a week. Some travellers who have been on the authorised transit site have been evicted due to violations of their licence, so therefore they cannot be redirected back. The on going problems with the transit site due to the drainage problem have been caused due to the original building of the site. The facilities are not adequate for the number using it and therefore after an inspection by the Environment Agency in in may 2013 the capacity was reduced. Instead of spending thousands of pounds in trying to make this site safe for our water supply Jason Kitkat and his fellow councillors should be looking for a suitable site elsewhere.
Travellers and gypsies are far from stupid. They know if an eviction order has been granted to remove them on Friday if they go of their own accord on Thursday they can return to the site vacated within a few days or a week. Some travellers who have been on the authorised transit site have been evicted due to violations of their licence, so therefore they cannot be redirected back. The on going problems with the transit site due to the drainage problem have been caused due to the original building of the site. The facilities are not adequate for the number using it and therefore after an inspection by the Environment Agency in in may 2013 the capacity was reduced. Instead of spending thousands of pounds in trying to make this site safe for our water supply Jason Kitkat and his fellow councillors should be looking for a suitable site elsewhere. L bailey
  • Score: 10

9:27pm Tue 17 Jun 14

ARMANA says...

Its European law, that the travellers hide behind, some years back Hastings council were fined £200.000 by Brussels, for getting tough with travellers, English councils have been hiding under the covers ever since, !! VOTE U.KIP, They will sort this out, !!!!!!!!!!!!
Its European law, that the travellers hide behind, some years back Hastings council were fined £200.000 by Brussels, for getting tough with travellers, English councils have been hiding under the covers ever since, !! VOTE U.KIP, They will sort this out, !!!!!!!!!!!! ARMANA
  • Score: 9

10:49pm Tue 17 Jun 14

wippasnapper says...

For your information the following is the latest news I have received concerning this park:

“We have been carrying out joint visits with the police today. Unfortunately this means that the encampment at Stanmer Park has grown to approx. 70 households. The Travellers have been told they are trespassers and must leave but have failed to do so. The police are on site and maintaining a presence to try to prevent issues of anti-social behaviour.

We are aware of the event planned for 21st June and the council and the police agree that this large encampment needs to be evicted prior to the event. We are working closely with the police as to how to best achieve this and I will keep you informed.”

I am curious to understand what is meant by the Travellers officially trespassing and yet remaining on site! I have a meeting with the Director within the council that covers this issue on Friday and also with the police and senior offices on Monday. My intention is to get to the bottom of what exactly the council can and can’t do and why it is that the police don’t always appear to issue a section 61 for immediate eviction when it seems clear that Travellers have exercised anti-social behaviour.

Tomorrow morning I will be in Stanmer and meeting with Danny at the stables to see what further damage has been caused since my earlier visit on Saturday for which I took several photos. If any of you are there and want to speak with me please do come along or give me a call.

I completely appreciate how unfair it is that so many Travellers (70 households on Stanmer now) who appear to be well resourced and many of them with their own businesses, can presume to take possession of public space like this, treat it with such contempt, intimidate others on site (even to the point of causing serious damage), and avoid any fiscal responsibilities. It’s a perverse situation and I intend to pursue it with your help.

Please do note that if any of these Travellers try to relocate back to Wild Park once they are moved on this week, and are those who were evicted from Wild Park last week by section 61 notice, they will be arrested.

Please keep me posted if you see or experience any problems between now and tomorrow morning and, again, do remember to call the police on 101 if you feel the law is being broken.

With best wishes as always.

From Christina Summers.
For your information the following is the latest news I have received concerning this park: “We have been carrying out joint visits with the police today. Unfortunately this means that the encampment at Stanmer Park has grown to approx. 70 households. The Travellers have been told they are trespassers and must leave but have failed to do so. The police are on site and maintaining a presence to try to prevent issues of anti-social behaviour. We are aware of the event planned for 21st June and the council and the police agree that this large encampment needs to be evicted prior to the event. We are working closely with the police as to how to best achieve this and I will keep you informed.” I am curious to understand what is meant by the Travellers officially trespassing and yet remaining on site! I have a meeting with the Director within the council that covers this issue on Friday and also with the police and senior offices on Monday. My intention is to get to the bottom of what exactly the council can and can’t do and why it is that the police don’t always appear to issue a section 61 for immediate eviction when it seems clear that Travellers have exercised anti-social behaviour. Tomorrow morning I will be in Stanmer and meeting with Danny at the stables to see what further damage has been caused since my earlier visit on Saturday for which I took several photos. If any of you are there and want to speak with me please do come along or give me a call. I completely appreciate how unfair it is that so many Travellers (70 households on Stanmer now) who appear to be well resourced and many of them with their own businesses, can presume to take possession of public space like this, treat it with such contempt, intimidate others on site (even to the point of causing serious damage), and avoid any fiscal responsibilities. It’s a perverse situation and I intend to pursue it with your help. Please do note that if any of these Travellers try to relocate back to Wild Park once they are moved on this week, and are those who were evicted from Wild Park last week by section 61 notice, they will be arrested. Please keep me posted if you see or experience any problems between now and tomorrow morning and, again, do remember to call the police on 101 if you feel the law is being broken. With best wishes as always. From Christina Summers. wippasnapper
  • Score: 22

11:43pm Tue 17 Jun 14

wippasnapper says...

A couple out walking there dogs on Sunday where approached and threatened by travellers in Stanmer woods the travellers threatened to beat them up and put them in the back of there van this apparently has been reported to the police with photos… this is clear outright antisocial behaviour plus threats to Physically harm so I ponder what kittykat would have to say to that would he has he has clearly been doing hear in most of his posts protecting the travellers Rights but what of the rights of the many Victims from traveller attacks, I last week was Physically attacked in the Wiled Park by traveller children who tried to pull me off my mobility scooter and it was witnessed by another and I did report it to the police and made a statement but they never contacted the witness for a statement and last year another person was attacked wile riding down the pavement at the fount of the wile park as a travellers van approached him on the pavement he refused to get out of there way two travellers got out of the van and Physically attacked him by pulled him off his scooter and through his scoter to one side and promptly went on there way… it seems Jason Kitkat is more concerned about the rights of travellers than he is of anyone else’s rights maybe that’s because in his younger years he was a new age bum traveller and personally even today he is the biggest scum we have had the pleaser of in this city for its entirety and its time this scum packed his bags and left our city for good!! I have to admit reading through his comments has totally rattled my cage and I’ve love to rip the scum bags head off.
A couple out walking there dogs on Sunday where approached and threatened by travellers in Stanmer woods the travellers threatened to beat them up and put them in the back of there van this apparently has been reported to the police with photos… this is clear outright antisocial behaviour plus threats to Physically harm so I ponder what kittykat would have to say to that would he has he has clearly been doing hear in most of his posts protecting the travellers Rights but what of the rights of the many Victims from traveller attacks, I last week was Physically attacked in the Wiled Park by traveller children who tried to pull me off my mobility scooter and it was witnessed by another and I did report it to the police and made a statement but they never contacted the witness for a statement and last year another person was attacked wile riding down the pavement at the fount of the wile park as a travellers van approached him on the pavement he refused to get out of there way two travellers got out of the van and Physically attacked him by pulled him off his scooter and through his scoter to one side and promptly went on there way… it seems Jason Kitkat is more concerned about the rights of travellers than he is of anyone else’s rights maybe that’s because in his younger years he was a new age bum traveller and personally even today he is the biggest scum we have had the pleaser of in this city for its entirety and its time this scum packed his bags and left our city for good!! I have to admit reading through his comments has totally rattled my cage and I’ve love to rip the scum bags head off. wippasnapper
  • Score: 16

6:47am Wed 18 Jun 14

Sir Prised says...

Has Kitkat approached the government he hides behind and registered his anger, that his town's people are being greatly inconvenienced by these anti-social pariahs? No thought not, Instead he defends everything they do and I hope for the city's sake, he gone soon. By the way, transient students should NOT be able to dictate Brighton politics!
Has Kitkat approached the government he hides behind and registered his anger, that his town's people are being greatly inconvenienced by these anti-social pariahs? No thought not, Instead he defends everything they do and I hope for the city's sake, he gone soon. By the way, transient students should NOT be able to dictate Brighton politics! Sir Prised
  • Score: 9

7:25am Wed 18 Jun 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Caroline Lucas has written a letter to the argus this week which states her position on travellers which clearly is not aligned to Jason's position. Too little too later Caroline, but clearly she is trying to distance herself from the councils lack of action managing the issue in the run up to the election next year.
The reality is that green spaces are the lungs of a city. The Greens cannot bleat on about congestion and the environment and air quality and then allow thousands of diesel vans sit on green spaces.
Not only does this damage the environment but it deprives people in the city of being able to use the spaces ironic when the council want people to walk and cycle means people haven't any local green amenities to use so will now drive to other parks where there aren't travellers.
Caroline has also backed herself into a corner by heading off to Balcombe to protest against fracking and now realising that diesel vans and piles of rubbish sitting on the city parks pose the same type of environmental risk as fracking activity.
She's now had to take a stand. Maybe the letter is in the letters archive on this site.
The reality is Jason, we are a city and green spaces need to be used for local people, not vans whoever is driving them.
And Jason if you want more local spaces to be used as traveller sites, I suggest these are in wards where green councillors sit ie Preston Park.
They voted green, so they should get what Jason wants. The people of Moulsecoomb and Bevendean didn't so keep the vans off Wild Park please, my wife uses it to train for charity fund raising races as do many of her fellow runners.
Caroline Lucas has written a letter to the argus this week which states her position on travellers which clearly is not aligned to Jason's position. Too little too later Caroline, but clearly she is trying to distance herself from the councils lack of action managing the issue in the run up to the election next year. The reality is that green spaces are the lungs of a city. The Greens cannot bleat on about congestion and the environment and air quality and then allow thousands of diesel vans sit on green spaces. Not only does this damage the environment but it deprives people in the city of being able to use the spaces ironic when the council want people to walk and cycle means people haven't any local green amenities to use so will now drive to other parks where there aren't travellers. Caroline has also backed herself into a corner by heading off to Balcombe to protest against fracking and now realising that diesel vans and piles of rubbish sitting on the city parks pose the same type of environmental risk as fracking activity. She's now had to take a stand. Maybe the letter is in the letters archive on this site. The reality is Jason, we are a city and green spaces need to be used for local people, not vans whoever is driving them. And Jason if you want more local spaces to be used as traveller sites, I suggest these are in wards where green councillors sit ie Preston Park. They voted green, so they should get what Jason wants. The people of Moulsecoomb and Bevendean didn't so keep the vans off Wild Park please, my wife uses it to train for charity fund raising races as do many of her fellow runners. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 14

8:58am Wed 18 Jun 14

TonyTony says...

Oh Please!!!! wrote:
Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?
Wednesday
[quote][p][bold]Oh Please!!!![/bold] wrote: Anyone want a bet as to how long the Argus will keep the comments section open?[/p][/quote]Wednesday TonyTony
  • Score: 2

8:59am Wed 18 Jun 14

TonyTony says...

ARMANA wrote:
Its European law, that the travellers hide behind, some years back Hastings council were fined £200.000 by Brussels, for getting tough with travellers, English councils have been hiding under the covers ever since, !! VOTE U.KIP, They will sort this out, !!!!!!!!!!!!
And how will they go about that
[quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: Its European law, that the travellers hide behind, some years back Hastings council were fined £200.000 by Brussels, for getting tough with travellers, English councils have been hiding under the covers ever since, !! VOTE U.KIP, They will sort this out, !!!!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]And how will they go about that TonyTony
  • Score: 3

9:08am Wed 18 Jun 14

Hey Hey says...

Mr Kit Kat would be better if he just called himself JK like that guy out of jamiroquai. It would also help if he wrote a hit single for the film Godzilla. Just my thoughts.
Mr Kit Kat would be better if he just called himself JK like that guy out of jamiroquai. It would also help if he wrote a hit single for the film Godzilla. Just my thoughts. Hey Hey
  • Score: 2

12:55pm Wed 18 Jun 14

rolivan says...

Warren Morgan has been very quiet he usually has something to say, perhaps he is on a Staycation.
Warren Morgan has been very quiet he usually has something to say, perhaps he is on a Staycation. rolivan
  • Score: 1

2:29pm Wed 18 Jun 14

We love Red Billy says...

Funny how we are not allowed to comment on Jason's latest wheeze of tolerating travelers on our parks and green spaces. Bet he does not want them in Carden Avenue. #politicalchamberpot
s
Funny how we are not allowed to comment on Jason's latest wheeze of tolerating travelers on our parks and green spaces. Bet he does not want them in Carden Avenue. #politicalchamberpot s We love Red Billy
  • Score: 2

5:38pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Zeta Function says...

The Greens should be critical of the travellers for living unsustainably: depending on vehicles for homes, putting juveniles and elderly at risk from the lack of proper sanitation.

Family links may go back 200 years but the population in the area has increased, the city has expanded, more roads, flats, schools, etc. There are many more communities having to share the reduced green spaces.

The travellers as one community among many are not an exception. If there are no public health byelaws obliging authorities to remove vehicle dwellers then a petition might be the way forward.
The Greens should be critical of the travellers for living unsustainably: depending on vehicles for homes, putting juveniles and elderly at risk from the lack of proper sanitation. Family links may go back 200 years but the population in the area has increased, the city has expanded, more roads, flats, schools, etc. There are many more communities having to share the reduced green spaces. The travellers as one community among many are not an exception. If there are no public health byelaws obliging authorities to remove vehicle dwellers then a petition might be the way forward. Zeta Function
  • Score: 5

7:19pm Wed 18 Jun 14

TOPTEAM says...

I'm old school,I did not have to check where I could take my children to a park.check as to their safety,ie the accluminated filth , the unauthorised vehicles careering around the park,quad bikes in the woods
Mr Kitkat not having the costs to the taxpayer in the interview,does he think the. Tax paying people are Muppets ?
23 out of 26 sites are in the Brighton area,this is surely a gross imbalance
Fed up but the Greens are ruining this. Lovely Town of ours
I'm old school,I did not have to check where I could take my children to a park.check as to their safety,ie the accluminated filth , the unauthorised vehicles careering around the park,quad bikes in the woods Mr Kitkat not having the costs to the taxpayer in the interview,does he think the. Tax paying people are Muppets ? 23 out of 26 sites are in the Brighton area,this is surely a gross imbalance Fed up but the Greens are ruining this. Lovely Town of ours TOPTEAM
  • Score: 3

7:47pm Wed 18 Jun 14

KarenT says...

Wow, a thread where you're actually allowed to comment on travellers. Shock horror. It's bad enough that they park up and trash all our parks and green spaces, but then there's the street drinking and thieving and crime generally that they bring with them to the city. ZERO tolerance - there's my comment.
Wow, a thread where you're actually allowed to comment on travellers. Shock horror. It's bad enough that they park up and trash all our parks and green spaces, but then there's the street drinking and thieving and crime generally that they bring with them to the city. ZERO tolerance - there's my comment. KarenT
  • Score: 1

7:49pm Wed 18 Jun 14

KarenT says...

Stoves wrote:
Why is it OK for people top be racist towards Travellers? Is it really such a big issue? they come, the park and leave. Then the council clean up after them. So what?
So I take it you don't mind funding that clean-up then? How benevolent of you.
[quote][p][bold]Stoves[/bold] wrote: Why is it OK for people top be racist towards Travellers? Is it really such a big issue? they come, the park and leave. Then the council clean up after them. So what?[/p][/quote]So I take it you don't mind funding that clean-up then? How benevolent of you. KarenT
  • Score: 2

7:54pm Wed 18 Jun 14

KarenT says...

Stoves wrote:
oldskool_raver wrote:
Stoves wrote:
kopite_rob wrote:
So Kitkats first response is by building more facilities it will stop illegal encampments.
Yet the current facility was reported as having only one occupant when the latest debacle started.
It wouldn't make any difference if there was 100 pitches, why pay rent when you can park for free.
why do you care? please can you explain how this will impact on your life?
It impacts on people lives when they can't take their children for a walk in Stanmer Park without the fear of being run over by members of the travelling community who are racing quad bikes through the woods.
It also impacts peoples life when they have to look at the rubbish they've just fly tipped from the back of their vans.
It's an impact on peoples lives when they have to go and retrieve their child's bike from members of the travelling community who think its fine to take it. Shall I find some more examples of the impact?
Yes please - but ensure to keep them all factual like above.

Does any of this impact on your life or are you just generalising against a minority, cause it makes you look clever?

Where are they meant to to go?

I have never really had an issue with travellers and i am not sure you have any facts to base your bigoted claims on?!?!?
I've lost count of the number of times I've had the great misfortune of being in one of our parks when there's been a traveller encampment present. I've been sexually harassed, followed around, even had a van follow me once and try and run over my dog when I told them to leave me alone. So YOU haven't had any issues with them, huh? Well I have, far too many times. I find them insufferable (that's me being kind), nothing to do with bigotry, race or class snobbishness... just the FACTS!
[quote][p][bold]Stoves[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]oldskool_raver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stoves[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kopite_rob[/bold] wrote: So Kitkats first response is by building more facilities it will stop illegal encampments. Yet the current facility was reported as having only one occupant when the latest debacle started. It wouldn't make any difference if there was 100 pitches, why pay rent when you can park for free.[/p][/quote]why do you care? please can you explain how this will impact on your life?[/p][/quote]It impacts on people lives when they can't take their children for a walk in Stanmer Park without the fear of being run over by members of the travelling community who are racing quad bikes through the woods. It also impacts peoples life when they have to look at the rubbish they've just fly tipped from the back of their vans. It's an impact on peoples lives when they have to go and retrieve their child's bike from members of the travelling community who think its fine to take it. Shall I find some more examples of the impact?[/p][/quote]Yes please - but ensure to keep them all factual like above. Does any of this impact on your life or are you just generalising against a minority, cause it makes you look clever? Where are they meant to to go? I have never really had an issue with travellers and i am not sure you have any facts to base your bigoted claims on?!?!?[/p][/quote]I've lost count of the number of times I've had the great misfortune of being in one of our parks when there's been a traveller encampment present. I've been sexually harassed, followed around, even had a van follow me once and try and run over my dog when I told them to leave me alone. So YOU haven't had any issues with them, huh? Well I have, far too many times. I find them insufferable (that's me being kind), nothing to do with bigotry, race or class snobbishness... just the FACTS! KarenT
  • Score: 2

8:16pm Wed 18 Jun 14

KarenT says...

Reading Kitkat's comments here - ridiculous. As if the the Green Party wasn't unpopular enough already and there weren't already enough reasons to get them the heck out of B&H. Sod the locals, sod the taxpayers, let's just all fund and be inconvenienced by these people who choose to live outside of society with 'alternative lifestyles'.... Why? Because the Green Party are a bunch of misguided hippies who are actually naive enough to believe that what they are trying to do here is altruistic and humane. Hard-working taxpayers in this city, AND this country, are fed up with being sidelined and stifled for the sake of "human rights". If you need any more proof of this just look at the remarkable threat to the status quo UKIP has made in the past few months. I think the British people are generally quite stoical and resigned politically, but don't ever underestimate their ability to bite back when pushed too far. This mistake has been made for far too long, and the considerable amount of people who are getting sick of having the 'race' and 'human rights' cards being shoved down their throats (at the expense of their OWN 'human rights') are now starting to revolt. Take heed.
Reading Kitkat's comments here - ridiculous. As if the the Green Party wasn't unpopular enough already and there weren't already enough reasons to get them the heck out of B&H. Sod the locals, sod the taxpayers, let's just all fund and be inconvenienced by these people who choose to live outside of society with 'alternative lifestyles'.... Why? Because the Green Party are a bunch of misguided hippies who are actually naive enough to believe that what they are trying to do here is altruistic and humane. Hard-working taxpayers in this city, AND this country, are fed up with being sidelined and stifled for the sake of "human rights". If you need any more proof of this just look at the remarkable threat to the status quo UKIP has made in the past few months. I think the British people are generally quite stoical and resigned politically, but don't ever underestimate their ability to bite back when pushed too far. This mistake has been made for far too long, and the considerable amount of people who are getting sick of having the 'race' and 'human rights' cards being shoved down their throats (at the expense of their OWN 'human rights') are now starting to revolt. Take heed. KarenT
  • Score: 7

9:37pm Wed 18 Jun 14

KarenT says...

Kitkat - if you are reading these comments, I hope you have the sense to start updating your CV... You will most definitely be unemployed next year! Can't come soon enough...
Kitkat - if you are reading these comments, I hope you have the sense to start updating your CV... You will most definitely be unemployed next year! Can't come soon enough... KarenT
  • Score: 3

11:01am Thu 19 Jun 14

fredflintstone1 says...

KarenT wrote:
Stoves wrote:
oldskool_raver wrote:
Stoves wrote:
kopite_rob wrote:
So Kitkats first response is by building more facilities it will stop illegal encampments.
Yet the current facility was reported as having only one occupant when the latest debacle started.
It wouldn't make any difference if there was 100 pitches, why pay rent when you can park for free.
why do you care? please can you explain how this will impact on your life?
It impacts on people lives when they can't take their children for a walk in Stanmer Park without the fear of being run over by members of the travelling community who are racing quad bikes through the woods.
It also impacts peoples life when they have to look at the rubbish they've just fly tipped from the back of their vans.
It's an impact on peoples lives when they have to go and retrieve their child's bike from members of the travelling community who think its fine to take it. Shall I find some more examples of the impact?
Yes please - but ensure to keep them all factual like above.

Does any of this impact on your life or are you just generalising against a minority, cause it makes you look clever?

Where are they meant to to go?

I have never really had an issue with travellers and i am not sure you have any facts to base your bigoted claims on?!?!?
I've lost count of the number of times I've had the great misfortune of being in one of our parks when there's been a traveller encampment present. I've been sexually harassed, followed around, even had a van follow me once and try and run over my dog when I told them to leave me alone. So YOU haven't had any issues with them, huh? Well I have, far too many times. I find them insufferable (that's me being kind), nothing to do with bigotry, race or class snobbishness... just the FACTS!
It's been fascinating (for once to be allowed) to read the experiences of people who have encountered travellers at close quarters in our parks. This side of the debate is never normally reported and so is overlooked.
[quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stoves[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]oldskool_raver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stoves[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kopite_rob[/bold] wrote: So Kitkats first response is by building more facilities it will stop illegal encampments. Yet the current facility was reported as having only one occupant when the latest debacle started. It wouldn't make any difference if there was 100 pitches, why pay rent when you can park for free.[/p][/quote]why do you care? please can you explain how this will impact on your life?[/p][/quote]It impacts on people lives when they can't take their children for a walk in Stanmer Park without the fear of being run over by members of the travelling community who are racing quad bikes through the woods. It also impacts peoples life when they have to look at the rubbish they've just fly tipped from the back of their vans. It's an impact on peoples lives when they have to go and retrieve their child's bike from members of the travelling community who think its fine to take it. Shall I find some more examples of the impact?[/p][/quote]Yes please - but ensure to keep them all factual like above. Does any of this impact on your life or are you just generalising against a minority, cause it makes you look clever? Where are they meant to to go? I have never really had an issue with travellers and i am not sure you have any facts to base your bigoted claims on?!?!?[/p][/quote]I've lost count of the number of times I've had the great misfortune of being in one of our parks when there's been a traveller encampment present. I've been sexually harassed, followed around, even had a van follow me once and try and run over my dog when I told them to leave me alone. So YOU haven't had any issues with them, huh? Well I have, far too many times. I find them insufferable (that's me being kind), nothing to do with bigotry, race or class snobbishness... just the FACTS![/p][/quote]It's been fascinating (for once to be allowed) to read the experiences of people who have encountered travellers at close quarters in our parks. This side of the debate is never normally reported and so is overlooked. fredflintstone1
  • Score: 2

11:58am Thu 19 Jun 14

rolivan says...

fredflintstone1 wrote:
KarenT wrote:
Stoves wrote:
oldskool_raver wrote:
Stoves wrote:
kopite_rob wrote:
So Kitkats first response is by building more facilities it will stop illegal encampments.
Yet the current facility was reported as having only one occupant when the latest debacle started.
It wouldn't make any difference if there was 100 pitches, why pay rent when you can park for free.
why do you care? please can you explain how this will impact on your life?
It impacts on people lives when they can't take their children for a walk in Stanmer Park without the fear of being run over by members of the travelling community who are racing quad bikes through the woods.
It also impacts peoples life when they have to look at the rubbish they've just fly tipped from the back of their vans.
It's an impact on peoples lives when they have to go and retrieve their child's bike from members of the travelling community who think its fine to take it. Shall I find some more examples of the impact?
Yes please - but ensure to keep them all factual like above.

Does any of this impact on your life or are you just generalising against a minority, cause it makes you look clever?

Where are they meant to to go?

I have never really had an issue with travellers and i am not sure you have any facts to base your bigoted claims on?!?!?
I've lost count of the number of times I've had the great misfortune of being in one of our parks when there's been a traveller encampment present. I've been sexually harassed, followed around, even had a van follow me once and try and run over my dog when I told them to leave me alone. So YOU haven't had any issues with them, huh? Well I have, far too many times. I find them insufferable (that's me being kind), nothing to do with bigotry, race or class snobbishness... just the FACTS!
It's been fascinating (for once to be allowed) to read the experiences of people who have encountered travellers at close quarters in our parks. This side of the debate is never normally reported and so is overlooked.
Yes maybe the Argus Editors have realised that there are people out there that
Are prepared to comment and debate the subject without causing any legal issues
[quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stoves[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]oldskool_raver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stoves[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kopite_rob[/bold] wrote: So Kitkats first response is by building more facilities it will stop illegal encampments. Yet the current facility was reported as having only one occupant when the latest debacle started. It wouldn't make any difference if there was 100 pitches, why pay rent when you can park for free.[/p][/quote]why do you care? please can you explain how this will impact on your life?[/p][/quote]It impacts on people lives when they can't take their children for a walk in Stanmer Park without the fear of being run over by members of the travelling community who are racing quad bikes through the woods. It also impacts peoples life when they have to look at the rubbish they've just fly tipped from the back of their vans. It's an impact on peoples lives when they have to go and retrieve their child's bike from members of the travelling community who think its fine to take it. Shall I find some more examples of the impact?[/p][/quote]Yes please - but ensure to keep them all factual like above. Does any of this impact on your life or are you just generalising against a minority, cause it makes you look clever? Where are they meant to to go? I have never really had an issue with travellers and i am not sure you have any facts to base your bigoted claims on?!?!?[/p][/quote]I've lost count of the number of times I've had the great misfortune of being in one of our parks when there's been a traveller encampment present. I've been sexually harassed, followed around, even had a van follow me once and try and run over my dog when I told them to leave me alone. So YOU haven't had any issues with them, huh? Well I have, far too many times. I find them insufferable (that's me being kind), nothing to do with bigotry, race or class snobbishness... just the FACTS![/p][/quote]It's been fascinating (for once to be allowed) to read the experiences of people who have encountered travellers at close quarters in our parks. This side of the debate is never normally reported and so is overlooked.[/p][/quote]Yes maybe the Argus Editors have realised that there are people out there that Are prepared to comment and debate the subject without causing any legal issues rolivan
  • Score: 4

2:55pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Oh Please!!!! says...

No comments allowed on this story

http://www.theargus.
co.uk/news/11289022.
Police_donate_hundre
ds_of_pounds_to_gyps
y_and_traveller_prod
uction/?ref=var_0

Just a thought but if they didn't trash public places and pitch up where they like they might not be stigmatised, I am surprised PC PC doesn't get this point..
No comments allowed on this story http://www.theargus. co.uk/news/11289022. Police_donate_hundre ds_of_pounds_to_gyps y_and_traveller_prod uction/?ref=var_0 Just a thought but if they didn't trash public places and pitch up where they like they might not be stigmatised, I am surprised PC PC doesn't get this point.. Oh Please!!!!
  • Score: 5

4:31pm Thu 19 Jun 14

KarenT says...

Oh Please!!!! wrote:
No comments allowed on this story

http://www.theargus.

co.uk/news/11289022.

Police_donate_hundre

ds_of_pounds_to_gyps

y_and_traveller_prod

uction/?ref=var_0

Just a thought but if they didn't trash public places and pitch up where they like they might not be stigmatised, I am surprised PC PC doesn't get this point..
Exactly.

"The month aims to celebrate the culture of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities and tackle negative stereotyping and prejudice."

What about people who are NOT buying into negative stereotyping and prejudice? What about the people who are actually experiencing real problems? Why is always assumed that to speak out against the behaviour of a group of people is tantamount to "stereotyping and prejudice"??? THAT is why comments are disabled - because we're not allowed to speak out, and are dismissed as racists if we do. Same ole, same ole...
[quote][p][bold]Oh Please!!!![/bold] wrote: No comments allowed on this story http://www.theargus. co.uk/news/11289022. Police_donate_hundre ds_of_pounds_to_gyps y_and_traveller_prod uction/?ref=var_0 Just a thought but if they didn't trash public places and pitch up where they like they might not be stigmatised, I am surprised PC PC doesn't get this point..[/p][/quote]Exactly. "The month aims to celebrate the culture of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities and tackle negative stereotyping and prejudice." What about people who are NOT buying into negative stereotyping and prejudice? What about the people who are actually experiencing real problems? Why is always assumed that to speak out against the behaviour of a group of people is tantamount to "stereotyping and prejudice"??? THAT is why comments are disabled - because we're not allowed to speak out, and are dismissed as racists if we do. Same ole, same ole... KarenT
  • Score: 2

9:25am Fri 20 Jun 14

fredflintstone1 says...

KarenT wrote:
Oh Please!!!! wrote:
No comments allowed on this story

http://www.theargus.


co.uk/news/11289022.


Police_donate_hundre


ds_of_pounds_to_gyps


y_and_traveller_prod


uction/?ref=var_0

Just a thought but if they didn't trash public places and pitch up where they like they might not be stigmatised, I am surprised PC PC doesn't get this point..
Exactly.

"The month aims to celebrate the culture of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities and tackle negative stereotyping and prejudice."

What about people who are NOT buying into negative stereotyping and prejudice? What about the people who are actually experiencing real problems? Why is always assumed that to speak out against the behaviour of a group of people is tantamount to "stereotyping and prejudice"??? THAT is why comments are disabled - because we're not allowed to speak out, and are dismissed as racists if we do. Same ole, same ole...
It's worth pointing out (unless I'm mistaken) that Supt Hobbs didn't have a whip-round in the office (in which case, fair enough) but this is PUBLIC money being used for this purpose, while our parks are being placed out of bounds and trashed. Is he attending the production while on duty or in his own time?

Also, of great concern is the fact that he, as a senior officer in charge, is not ensuring that existing byelaws are enforced to prevent travellers from taking up residence in our parks. This is the police's responsibility, and doesn't require council involvement.
[quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oh Please!!!![/bold] wrote: No comments allowed on this story http://www.theargus. co.uk/news/11289022. Police_donate_hundre ds_of_pounds_to_gyps y_and_traveller_prod uction/?ref=var_0 Just a thought but if they didn't trash public places and pitch up where they like they might not be stigmatised, I am surprised PC PC doesn't get this point..[/p][/quote]Exactly. "The month aims to celebrate the culture of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities and tackle negative stereotyping and prejudice." What about people who are NOT buying into negative stereotyping and prejudice? What about the people who are actually experiencing real problems? Why is always assumed that to speak out against the behaviour of a group of people is tantamount to "stereotyping and prejudice"??? THAT is why comments are disabled - because we're not allowed to speak out, and are dismissed as racists if we do. Same ole, same ole...[/p][/quote]It's worth pointing out (unless I'm mistaken) that Supt Hobbs didn't have a whip-round in the office (in which case, fair enough) but this is PUBLIC money being used for this purpose, while our parks are being placed out of bounds and trashed. Is he attending the production while on duty or in his own time? Also, of great concern is the fact that he, as a senior officer in charge, is not ensuring that existing byelaws are enforced to prevent travellers from taking up residence in our parks. This is the police's responsibility, and doesn't require council involvement. fredflintstone1
  • Score: 1

9:59am Fri 20 Jun 14

wippasnapper says...

Oh Please!!!! wrote:
No comments allowed on this story

http://www.theargus.

co.uk/news/11289022.

Police_donate_hundre

ds_of_pounds_to_gyps

y_and_traveller_prod

uction/?ref=var_0

Just a thought but if they didn't trash public places and pitch up where they like they might not be stigmatised, I am surprised PC PC doesn't get this point..
Are yes but there are ways of letting many people know what this idiotic councilor wants for B&H regardless of the fact that he himself uses the section 61 to have Traveller encampments removed from sports fields not to far from where he lives “Patcham” i.e. this is what I’ve posted on Google and Face-book.

According to Jason Kitkat parks and open spaces in outlying areas (suburban spaces) of the city should be used as “tolerated” sites adding people do not want to see “Fortress Brighton” A ‘Fortress Brighton’ approach isn’t affordable so dues he mean to tell use that clearing up after they have left is more affordable?

I’m baffled by his comments to allow Travellers set up an encampment on our sports fields and open spaces wile he takes out a section 61 to have them removed from a park no so far from where he lives and yet he feels “we could undertake some toleration” to allowing Travellers setting up encampments on our sports fields and open spaces even though we the Tax payers would not be able to use our sports fields and open spaces wile they are there and what of the anti social behavior or the dumping of rubbish on our sports fields and open spaces dose he some how think we should be more “tolerated”
Jason Kitkat is Brighton & Hove’s worst nightmare as he gives out his ideology on how we should be more tolerate.
http://www.theargus.
co.uk/news/11283703.
___Let_travellers_us
e_suburban_spaces__p
lea/
[quote][p][bold]Oh Please!!!![/bold] wrote: No comments allowed on this story http://www.theargus. co.uk/news/11289022. Police_donate_hundre ds_of_pounds_to_gyps y_and_traveller_prod uction/?ref=var_0 Just a thought but if they didn't trash public places and pitch up where they like they might not be stigmatised, I am surprised PC PC doesn't get this point..[/p][/quote]Are yes but there are ways of letting many people know what this idiotic councilor wants for B&H regardless of the fact that he himself uses the section 61 to have Traveller encampments removed from sports fields not to far from where he lives “Patcham” i.e. this is what I’ve posted on Google and Face-book. According to Jason Kitkat parks and open spaces in outlying areas (suburban spaces) of the city should be used as “tolerated” sites adding people do not want to see “Fortress Brighton” A ‘Fortress Brighton’ approach isn’t affordable so dues he mean to tell use that clearing up after they have left is more affordable? I’m baffled by his comments to allow Travellers set up an encampment on our sports fields and open spaces wile he takes out a section 61 to have them removed from a park no so far from where he lives and yet he feels “we could undertake some toleration” to allowing Travellers setting up encampments on our sports fields and open spaces even though we the Tax payers would not be able to use our sports fields and open spaces wile they are there and what of the anti social behavior or the dumping of rubbish on our sports fields and open spaces dose he some how think we should be more “tolerated” Jason Kitkat is Brighton & Hove’s worst nightmare as he gives out his ideology on how we should be more tolerate. http://www.theargus. co.uk/news/11283703. ___Let_travellers_us e_suburban_spaces__p lea/ wippasnapper
  • Score: 0

9:41pm Sun 22 Jun 14

ARMANA says...

TonyTony wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
Its European law, that the travellers hide behind, some years back Hastings council were fined £200.000 by Brussels, for getting tough with travellers, English councils have been hiding under the covers ever since, !! VOTE U.KIP, They will sort this out, !!!!!!!!!!!!
And how will they go about that
U.KIP will get us out of Europe, & we can dump the human rights laws with them, & set out our OWN rights laws.. apart from the travellers, we wont have to put up with mad mullas, preaching murder on our own streets, courtesy of the social security, etc, etc, etc, .... VOTE U.KIP !!!!
[quote][p][bold]TonyTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: Its European law, that the travellers hide behind, some years back Hastings council were fined £200.000 by Brussels, for getting tough with travellers, English councils have been hiding under the covers ever since, !! VOTE U.KIP, They will sort this out, !!!!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]And how will they go about that[/p][/quote]U.KIP will get us out of Europe, & we can dump the human rights laws with them, & set out our OWN rights laws.. apart from the travellers, we wont have to put up with mad mullas, preaching murder on our own streets, courtesy of the social security, etc, etc, etc, .... VOTE U.KIP !!!! ARMANA
  • Score: 0

7:05pm Mon 23 Jun 14

KarenT says...

Seeing as this is the only thread on travellers open to comments...

Re: The caravans, cars, vans and horse boxes that moved onto land to the west of Ditchling Road, Brighton, above Hollingbury and the Crowhurst Road industrial estate over the weekend...

"“The mess the travellers left was absolutely disgusting. There were nappies, food everywhere, a paddling pool and incredibly even flatscreen TVs. I went out to look and couldn’t believe it. This is a public space and they have left it looking like a tip. We have had people going around picking up the litter but they shouldn’t have to. It is just not fair. The Horsdean Traveller Transit site, off Braypool Lane, has pitches set aside for the travelling community. At the weekend just six of the ten were occupied."

Is it any wonder that people are FED UP???
Seeing as this is the only thread on travellers open to comments... Re: The caravans, cars, vans and horse boxes that moved onto land to the west of Ditchling Road, Brighton, above Hollingbury and the Crowhurst Road industrial estate over the weekend... "“The mess the travellers left was absolutely disgusting. There were nappies, food everywhere, a paddling pool and incredibly even flatscreen TVs. I went out to look and couldn’t believe it. This is a public space and they have left it looking like a tip. We have had people going around picking up the litter but they shouldn’t have to. It is just not fair. The Horsdean Traveller Transit site, off Braypool Lane, has pitches set aside for the travelling community. At the weekend just six of the ten were occupied." Is it any wonder that people are FED UP??? KarenT
  • Score: 3

7:10pm Mon 23 Jun 14

KarenT says...

I know, let's create even MORE B&H public spaces for these people to trash. How about the large patch of green in the city centre where the war memorial is??? Hey, it would be 'racist' to object...
I know, let's create even MORE B&H public spaces for these people to trash. How about the large patch of green in the city centre where the war memorial is??? Hey, it would be 'racist' to object... KarenT
  • Score: 1

10:57pm Mon 23 Jun 14

Helen Ariel says...

My friend and I were just spat at and had a stone thrown at us by some traveler youths whilst cycling past on the new cycle path but by all means lets allow these lovely people to stay on our parks and use them as latrines and dumps!
My friend and I were just spat at and had a stone thrown at us by some traveler youths whilst cycling past on the new cycle path but by all means lets allow these lovely people to stay on our parks and use them as latrines and dumps! Helen Ariel
  • Score: 1

10:23pm Fri 27 Jun 14

KarenT says...

Every day they turn up somewhere new after having been ousted. Today - Rottingdean Park, earlier Pycombe and Findon, and I've lost track of all the other encampments in the past fortnight. Musical chairs. A bit like sorting an ant infestation in the kitchen and then two days later they turn up in the bathroom. But we can't interfere - it's something called "ant rights"! Right locals, get down there with your poop scoops and bin liners. I'm sure this post won't see the light of day for too long!
Every day they turn up somewhere new after having been ousted. Today - Rottingdean Park, earlier Pycombe and Findon, and I've lost track of all the other encampments in the past fortnight. Musical chairs. A bit like sorting an ant infestation in the kitchen and then two days later they turn up in the bathroom. But we can't interfere - it's something called "ant rights"! Right locals, get down there with your poop scoops and bin liners. I'm sure this post won't see the light of day for too long! KarenT
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree