Travellers on Arden Hall Playing Field - Page 4

Balbus · 18-06-2011, 10:19

The emphasis of your ignorance is unnecessary!

cashman · 18-06-2011, 10:29

yeh n its even more ignorant bitching about someones spelling, serves yeh right.

walkinman221 · 18-06-2011, 16:11

They have now gone council got a court order and moved them on, site left in a right state apparently

grego · 18-06-2011, 20:53

Glad to see they have gone, I know they have to live somewhere, but dont want it to be near me, at least now we can walk our children to school without feeling intimidated, they hadn't done anything to make us feel like that by the way, so maybe we are typecasting, just glad their gone.

cashman · 18-06-2011, 21:02

Thought maybe you had gone wi em grego?

aint seen yeh around fer awhile, welcome back.

lindsay ormerod · 22-06-2011, 17:44

They have not moved far, Bolton Avenue in Huncoat to precise where they are currently wrecking Huncoat's newly reseeded football pitch. Total tax dodging, scrounging scum, something other than just moving them on needs doing, fine the buggers there and then, they are never short a few bob.

jaysay · 22-06-2011, 17:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by lindsay ormerod

They have not moved far, Bolton Avenue in Huncoat to precise where they are currently wrecking Huncoat's newly reseeded football pitch. Total tax dodging, scrounging scum, something other than just moving them on needs doing, fine the buggers there and then, they are never short a few bob.

Think its a new game Lindsay, Musical Gypsies

Alan Varrechia · 22-06-2011, 18:34

Surround them with Max's cabs then set fire to the lot......

DaveinGermany · 22-06-2011, 18:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

Think its a new game Lindsay, Musical Gypsies

Ooh goody party games, lets play "Pin the blame on the P'key !"

jaysay · 22-06-2011, 18:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany

Ooh goody party games, lets play "Pin the blame on the P'key !"

Works for me

Neil · 22-06-2011, 21:01

What happened to one warning then sieze and crush vehicles driving off road using section 59

59 Vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance

(1) Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which-*

(a) contravenes section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and*
(b) is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public,*
he shall have the powers set out in subsection (3).

(2) A constable in uniform shall also have the powers set out in subsection (3) where he has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle has been used on any occasion in a manner falling within subsection (1).

(3) Those powers are-*

(a) power, if the motor vehicle is moving, to order the person driving it to stop the vehicle;*
(b) power to seize and remove the motor vehicle;*
(c) power, for the purposes of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a) or (b), to enter any premises on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be;*
(d) power to use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by any of paragraphs to (a) to (c).*
(4) A constable shall not seize a motor vehicle in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by this section unless-*

(a) he has warned the person appearing to him to be the person whose use falls within subsection (1) that he will seize it, if that use continues or is repeated; and*
(b) it appears to him that the use has continued or been repeated after the the warning.*
(5) Subsection (4) does not require a warning to be given by a constable on any occasion on which he would otherwise have the power to seize a motor vehicle under this section if-*

(a) the circumstances make it impracticable for him to give the warning;*
(b) the constable has already on that occasion given a warning under that subsection in respect of any use of that motor vehicle or of another motor vehicle by that person or any other person;*
(c) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that such a warning has been given on that occasion otherwise than by him; or*
(d) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person whose use of that motor vehicle on that occasion would justify the seizure is a person to whom a warning under that subsection has been given (whether or not by that constable or in respect the same vehicle or the same or a similar use) on a previous occasion in the previous twelve months.*
(6) A person who fails to comply with an order under subsection (3)(a) is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(7) Subsection (3)(c) does not authorise entry into a private dwelling house.

(8) The powers conferred on a constable by this section shall be exercisable only at a time when regulations under section 60 are in force.

(9) In this section-*

"driving" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52);*
"motor vehicle" means any mechanically propelled vehicle, whether or not it is intended or adapted for use on roads; and*
"private dwelling house" does not include any garage or other structure occupied with the dwelling house, or any land appurtenant to the dwelling house.*

Gobbiner17 · 22-06-2011, 22:51

Seems to me like if someone is annoyed with travellers behaviour and can convince a constable likewise, then it is easy to get them evicted. However, this thread shows prejudice (whether justified or not) against travellers and it is likely the constable has to take this into consideration before taking any action.

cashman · 22-06-2011, 22:54

since when was telling it as it is prejudicial?

Gobbiner17 · 22-06-2011, 23:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

since when was telling it as it is prejudicial?

Telling it as it is to you is not telling it as it is to someone else. As there is an established prejudice against travellers, due to many court cases showing this, it is likely the law would require your facts for 'telling it as it is' to be very accurate, not exaggerated and not showing any prejudice of any kind, for them even to consider them. Very hard to do.

steeljack · 23-06-2011, 00:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gobbiner17

Telling it as it is to you is not telling it as it is to someone else. As there is an established prejudice against travellers, due to many court cases showing this, it is likely the law would require your facts for 'telling it as it is' to be very accurate, not exaggerated and not showing any prejudice of any kind, for them even to consider them. Very hard to do.

Sorry , Human vermin , pure and simple , seems to me the easy solution is for the Lancashire Police to get their chopper airborne every night at sundown and hover it at low level over every illegal encampment till they move on , may upset local residents for a couple of nights but think it will have the desired effect and peace and quiet will soon return