Green land in Test Valley could become traveller pitch

Daily Echo: Bridal View in Timsbury Bridal View in Timsbury

SCORES of residents have vowed to fight plans to build a solitary gypsy pitch in their Hampshire village.

More than 50 homeowners in Test Valley have launched a campaign against the proposal, which would see one gypsy pitch and a utility room built on vacant green land.

Planning chiefs are currently considering the application from Mary Barney to transform half an acre of the land known as Bridal View, on Manor Lane in Timsbury, into a home for her family.

Green Planning Solutions LLP, the firm acting as Mrs Barney’s agent in the application process, say that the development is needed in order “to meet a recognised need for such facilities in the area to facilitate a gypsy lifestyle”.

But company bosses refused to rule out the possibility of the six-acre site hosting more gypsies in the future.

Villagers fear that the proposal could trigger the start of a much larger traveller’s camp being set up, similar to the Dale Farm site, in Essex.

Bailiffs moved in to Dale Farm in October last year, after it became home to more than 1,000 travellers.

One Stockbridge Road resident, who asked not to be named, said: “We know this application is for one pitch, but it’s probably not going to stop there.

“All of us have got pictures of the next Dale Farm site in our minds.

“This land is a few acres in size. If that ends up covered in static homes it would be an eyesore and would reduce the value of properties in the area.

“It would be a travesty if the council were to allow that to happen.”

Another angry Timsbury resident added: “This site is green belt land and as such cannot be built on unless there are exceptional circumstances.

“No other members of the community have been given the right to build properties on this green land.

“Why should permission now be granted for a gypsy site when previous attempts to develop the site have been refused?”

Bob Davis, chairman of Michelmersh and Timsbury Parish Council, said he would be writing to Test Valley Borough Council on behalf of the residents.

He added: “The parish council has a duty to represent local residents and their concerns over the proposal will be fully investigated and taken into account in this response.”

In a brief statement, Matthew Green, from Green Planning Solutions LLP, said: “This site complies with development plans and national policy and should be permitted.”

Residents have until Friday, December 21 to respond to the proposals.

Comments (22)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:22am Fri 7 Dec 12

rich the stitch says...

Surely to facilitate the gypsy lifestyle all you need is some waste ground where they can pitch up for a few weeks, destroy the area with human waste, fires and rubbish and then move on leaving the council with a massive cleanup bill.
The residents have a right to be worried, I’d put money on that give it a year there would be more than the one family living there.
Surely to facilitate the gypsy lifestyle all you need is some waste ground where they can pitch up for a few weeks, destroy the area with human waste, fires and rubbish and then move on leaving the council with a massive cleanup bill. The residents have a right to be worried, I’d put money on that give it a year there would be more than the one family living there. rich the stitch

10:35am Fri 7 Dec 12

eurogordi says...

First of all we need to distinguish between Romanies and Travellers, as there is a significant difference between the two cultures.

Secondly, if "gypsies" face NIMBYs everywhere they go, where are the "gypsies" expected to live? Would we treat other ethnic groups the same as this?
First of all we need to distinguish between Romanies and Travellers, as there is a significant difference between the two cultures. Secondly, if "gypsies" face NIMBYs everywhere they go, where are the "gypsies" expected to live? Would we treat other ethnic groups the same as this? eurogordi

10:41am Fri 7 Dec 12

Dasal says...

Would we treat other ethnic groups the same as this?

Simple - NO WE DON'T !!!
I think its called "Human Rights".............
...
Would we treat other ethnic groups the same as this? Simple - NO WE DON'T !!! I think its called "Human Rights"............. ... Dasal

10:45am Fri 7 Dec 12

rich the stitch says...

It's not the fact they are an ethnic group, it's the total disregard for other people, their property and the disgusting mess they leave behind that people don’t like. Tell you what euro, why not have them set up camp near you?
It's not the fact they are an ethnic group, it's the total disregard for other people, their property and the disgusting mess they leave behind that people don’t like. Tell you what euro, why not have them set up camp near you? rich the stitch

10:59am Fri 7 Dec 12

Dasal says...

rich the stitch wrote:
It's not the fact they are an ethnic group, it's the total disregard for other people, their property and the disgusting mess they leave behind that people don’t like. Tell you what euro, why not have them set up camp near you?
it's the total disregard for other people, their property and the disgusting mess they leave behind

With obvious exceptions..........

You could be describing several council tenants of all racial background.
[quote][p][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote: It's not the fact they are an ethnic group, it's the total disregard for other people, their property and the disgusting mess they leave behind that people don’t like. Tell you what euro, why not have them set up camp near you?[/p][/quote]it's the total disregard for other people, their property and the disgusting mess they leave behind With obvious exceptions.......... You could be describing several council tenants of all racial background. Dasal

12:00pm Fri 7 Dec 12

one in a million says...

NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY....
NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY.... one in a million

12:39pm Fri 7 Dec 12

mooky9 says...

Dasal wrote:
rich the stitch wrote:
It's not the fact they are an ethnic group, it's the total disregard for other people, their property and the disgusting mess they leave behind that people don’t like. Tell you what euro, why not have them set up camp near you?
it's the total disregard for other people, their property and the disgusting mess they leave behind

With obvious exceptions..........


You could be describing several council tenants of all racial background.
Yes you could but the article doesn't refer to them it refers to travellers. So lets stick to the point. The point is when you have sites like this for travellers then issues follow, crime rises and a waste bill for the council ensues, that is not be being racist that is not being discriminatory that is me stating a fact. Residents are entitled to worry about their area, I think that is a basic human right too. So rather than just tar everyone with a brus calling them racist for airing a view why don't you actually appreciate their view and put a relevant argument as to why its not an issue...?
[quote][p][bold]Dasal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote: It's not the fact they are an ethnic group, it's the total disregard for other people, their property and the disgusting mess they leave behind that people don’t like. Tell you what euro, why not have them set up camp near you?[/p][/quote]it's the total disregard for other people, their property and the disgusting mess they leave behind With obvious exceptions.......... You could be describing several council tenants of all racial background.[/p][/quote]Yes you could but the article doesn't refer to them it refers to travellers. So lets stick to the point. The point is when you have sites like this for travellers then issues follow, crime rises and a waste bill for the council ensues, that is not be being racist that is not being discriminatory that is me stating a fact. Residents are entitled to worry about their area, I think that is a basic human right too. So rather than just tar everyone with a brus calling them racist for airing a view why don't you actually appreciate their view and put a relevant argument as to why its not an issue...? mooky9

12:54pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Dasal says...

mooky9 wrote:
Dasal wrote:
rich the stitch wrote: It's not the fact they are an ethnic group, it's the total disregard for other people, their property and the disgusting mess they leave behind that people don’t like. Tell you what euro, why not have them set up camp near you?
it's the total disregard for other people, their property and the disgusting mess they leave behind With obvious exceptions.......... You could be describing several council tenants of all racial background.
Yes you could but the article doesn't refer to them it refers to travellers. So lets stick to the point. The point is when you have sites like this for travellers then issues follow, crime rises and a waste bill for the council ensues, that is not be being racist that is not being discriminatory that is me stating a fact. Residents are entitled to worry about their area, I think that is a basic human right too. So rather than just tar everyone with a brus calling them racist for airing a view why don't you actually appreciate their view and put a relevant argument as to why its not an issue...?
Ooooooh.............
......Sorry !

Just a comparison, thats all !!
[quote][p][bold]mooky9[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dasal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote: It's not the fact they are an ethnic group, it's the total disregard for other people, their property and the disgusting mess they leave behind that people don’t like. Tell you what euro, why not have them set up camp near you?[/p][/quote]it's the total disregard for other people, their property and the disgusting mess they leave behind With obvious exceptions.......... You could be describing several council tenants of all racial background.[/p][/quote]Yes you could but the article doesn't refer to them it refers to travellers. So lets stick to the point. The point is when you have sites like this for travellers then issues follow, crime rises and a waste bill for the council ensues, that is not be being racist that is not being discriminatory that is me stating a fact. Residents are entitled to worry about their area, I think that is a basic human right too. So rather than just tar everyone with a brus calling them racist for airing a view why don't you actually appreciate their view and put a relevant argument as to why its not an issue...?[/p][/quote]Ooooooh............. ......Sorry ! Just a comparison, thats all !! Dasal

12:56pm Fri 7 Dec 12

ohec says...

The whole idea of the gypsy/traveler lifestyle is mobility so any sites that are permitted should have a maximum stay clause,(six months for example) if they want to live that lifestyle fair enough but i do not class static homes as mobile. Mobile to me means a caravan capable of being towed static homes are semi permanent and if they want something more permanent they should be treated as any other person, they have chosen to opt out of the society that most of us adhere to because they do not feel the need too contribute to the society that most people belong too as that means paying for things that society in general have to pay for. Yes the government have made councils obliged to provide facilities but they don't want to pay for them and finish up trashing them, is it any wonder that people see them as nothing more than scrounging scum when they carry on the way they do. They should provide facilities on industrial estates and make that the only place they can stop and give the police the power to move them on.
The whole idea of the gypsy/traveler lifestyle is mobility so any sites that are permitted should have a maximum stay clause,(six months for example) if they want to live that lifestyle fair enough but i do not class static homes as mobile. Mobile to me means a caravan capable of being towed static homes are semi permanent and if they want something more permanent they should be treated as any other person, they have chosen to opt out of the society that most of us adhere to because they do not feel the need too contribute to the society that most people belong too as that means paying for things that society in general have to pay for. Yes the government have made councils obliged to provide facilities but they don't want to pay for them and finish up trashing them, is it any wonder that people see them as nothing more than scrounging scum when they carry on the way they do. They should provide facilities on industrial estates and make that the only place they can stop and give the police the power to move them on. ohec

1:04pm Fri 7 Dec 12

MGRA says...

A lot of ignorance on this thread... Romanies are NOT the same as "travellers" or thieving tinkers as some refer to them. Gypsies have a right to their traditional lifestyle but distinctions have to be drawn to identify exactly who can claim the right to use that ethnic tag. Because tarmac-layers from the republic of ireland are NOT Romany
A lot of ignorance on this thread... Romanies are NOT the same as "travellers" or thieving tinkers as some refer to them. Gypsies have a right to their traditional lifestyle but distinctions have to be drawn to identify exactly who can claim the right to use that ethnic tag. Because tarmac-layers from the republic of ireland are NOT Romany MGRA

1:35pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Big Mac says...

'the land known as Bridal View'...
will that then become know as "Big Fat Gipsy Wedding" view then?
'the land known as Bridal View'... will that then become know as "Big Fat Gipsy Wedding" view then? Big Mac

1:35pm Fri 7 Dec 12

eurogordi says...

rich the stitch wrote:
It's not the fact they are an ethnic group, it's the total disregard for other people, their property and the disgusting mess they leave behind that people don’t like. Tell you what euro, why not have them set up camp near you?
Again, you need to distinguish between Romanies and Travellers.

I grew up in a village where gypsies (the Romany kind) lived. I went to school with their children while the adults sold pegs, flowers and sharpened tools around the village.

Yes, there was minor anti-social behaviour from time to time, but nothing to really worry about - probably because "anti-social behaviour" was not a phrase then.

I even went on TV with my father supporting the building of a permanent site, which led to my father being threatened by the new NIMBY arrivals who bought houses that were close to the then new M27 commuter route.

When was this? Almost 40 years ago, which shows how attitudes have failed to change throughout that time.

I admit to having little experence of the travelling (non-Romany) community, but those I have spoken to have usually been polite and respectful - which is more than can be said for the chavs in society who live in houses!
[quote][p][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote: It's not the fact they are an ethnic group, it's the total disregard for other people, their property and the disgusting mess they leave behind that people don’t like. Tell you what euro, why not have them set up camp near you?[/p][/quote]Again, you need to distinguish between Romanies and Travellers. I grew up in a village where gypsies (the Romany kind) lived. I went to school with their children while the adults sold pegs, flowers and sharpened tools around the village. Yes, there was minor anti-social behaviour from time to time, but nothing to really worry about - probably because "anti-social behaviour" was not a phrase then. I even went on TV with my father supporting the building of a permanent site, which led to my father being threatened by the new NIMBY arrivals who bought houses that were close to the then new M27 commuter route. When was this? Almost 40 years ago, which shows how attitudes have failed to change throughout that time. I admit to having little experence of the travelling (non-Romany) community, but those I have spoken to have usually been polite and respectful - which is more than can be said for the chavs in society who live in houses! eurogordi

1:47pm Fri 7 Dec 12

sass says...

ohec wrote:
The whole idea of the gypsy/traveler lifestyle is mobility so any sites that are permitted should have a maximum stay clause,(six months for example) if they want to live that lifestyle fair enough but i do not class static homes as mobile. Mobile to me means a caravan capable of being towed static homes are semi permanent and if they want something more permanent they should be treated as any other person, they have chosen to opt out of the society that most of us adhere to because they do not feel the need too contribute to the society that most people belong too as that means paying for things that society in general have to pay for. Yes the government have made councils obliged to provide facilities but they don't want to pay for them and finish up trashing them, is it any wonder that people see them as nothing more than scrounging scum when they carry on the way they do. They should provide facilities on industrial estates and make that the only place they can stop and give the police the power to move them on.
In two places your to has too many ohs.
[quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: The whole idea of the gypsy/traveler lifestyle is mobility so any sites that are permitted should have a maximum stay clause,(six months for example) if they want to live that lifestyle fair enough but i do not class static homes as mobile. Mobile to me means a caravan capable of being towed static homes are semi permanent and if they want something more permanent they should be treated as any other person, they have chosen to opt out of the society that most of us adhere to because they do not feel the need too contribute to the society that most people belong too as that means paying for things that society in general have to pay for. Yes the government have made councils obliged to provide facilities but they don't want to pay for them and finish up trashing them, is it any wonder that people see them as nothing more than scrounging scum when they carry on the way they do. They should provide facilities on industrial estates and make that the only place they can stop and give the police the power to move them on.[/p][/quote]In two places your to has too many ohs. sass

2:55pm Fri 7 Dec 12

rich the stitch says...

eurogordi wrote:
rich the stitch wrote: It's not the fact they are an ethnic group, it's the total disregard for other people, their property and the disgusting mess they leave behind that people don’t like. Tell you what euro, why not have them set up camp near you?
Again, you need to distinguish between Romanies and Travellers. I grew up in a village where gypsies (the Romany kind) lived. I went to school with their children while the adults sold pegs, flowers and sharpened tools around the village. Yes, there was minor anti-social behaviour from time to time, but nothing to really worry about - probably because "anti-social behaviour" was not a phrase then. I even went on TV with my father supporting the building of a permanent site, which led to my father being threatened by the new NIMBY arrivals who bought houses that were close to the then new M27 commuter route. When was this? Almost 40 years ago, which shows how attitudes have failed to change throughout that time. I admit to having little experence of the travelling (non-Romany) community, but those I have spoken to have usually been polite and respectful - which is more than can be said for the chavs in society who live in houses!
Over 40 years ago you say, you need to get with the times, they have changed. I think you’ll find the wooden peg/ lucky heather selling gypsy is well and truly gone. Replaced with type who steal, intimidate and leave human waste/ trash in their wake. I like the way you brush over the ‘minor anti social behaviour’.
[quote][p][bold]eurogordi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote: It's not the fact they are an ethnic group, it's the total disregard for other people, their property and the disgusting mess they leave behind that people don’t like. Tell you what euro, why not have them set up camp near you?[/p][/quote]Again, you need to distinguish between Romanies and Travellers. I grew up in a village where gypsies (the Romany kind) lived. I went to school with their children while the adults sold pegs, flowers and sharpened tools around the village. Yes, there was minor anti-social behaviour from time to time, but nothing to really worry about - probably because "anti-social behaviour" was not a phrase then. I even went on TV with my father supporting the building of a permanent site, which led to my father being threatened by the new NIMBY arrivals who bought houses that were close to the then new M27 commuter route. When was this? Almost 40 years ago, which shows how attitudes have failed to change throughout that time. I admit to having little experence of the travelling (non-Romany) community, but those I have spoken to have usually been polite and respectful - which is more than can be said for the chavs in society who live in houses![/p][/quote]Over 40 years ago you say, you need to get with the times, they have changed. I think you’ll find the wooden peg/ lucky heather selling gypsy is well and truly gone. Replaced with type who steal, intimidate and leave human waste/ trash in their wake. I like the way you brush over the ‘minor anti social behaviour’. rich the stitch

3:58pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Sovietobserver says...

For a fine example of how our travelling community live when gifted with modern housing in the New Forest area take a panoramic gander on Google Street View at BH23 8DY.
For a fine example of how our travelling community live when gifted with modern housing in the New Forest area take a panoramic gander on Google Street View at BH23 8DY. Sovietobserver

4:38pm Fri 7 Dec 12

ohec says...

sass wrote:
ohec wrote:
The whole idea of the gypsy/traveler lifestyle is mobility so any sites that are permitted should have a maximum stay clause,(six months for example) if they want to live that lifestyle fair enough but i do not class static homes as mobile. Mobile to me means a caravan capable of being towed static homes are semi permanent and if they want something more permanent they should be treated as any other person, they have chosen to opt out of the society that most of us adhere to because they do not feel the need too contribute to the society that most people belong too as that means paying for things that society in general have to pay for. Yes the government have made councils obliged to provide facilities but they don't want to pay for them and finish up trashing them, is it any wonder that people see them as nothing more than scrounging scum when they carry on the way they do. They should provide facilities on industrial estates and make that the only place they can stop and give the police the power to move them on.
In two places your to has too many ohs.
I most humbly apologise for my error and i will try not to do it again, i will now go and stand in the corner.
[quote][p][bold]sass[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: The whole idea of the gypsy/traveler lifestyle is mobility so any sites that are permitted should have a maximum stay clause,(six months for example) if they want to live that lifestyle fair enough but i do not class static homes as mobile. Mobile to me means a caravan capable of being towed static homes are semi permanent and if they want something more permanent they should be treated as any other person, they have chosen to opt out of the society that most of us adhere to because they do not feel the need too contribute to the society that most people belong too as that means paying for things that society in general have to pay for. Yes the government have made councils obliged to provide facilities but they don't want to pay for them and finish up trashing them, is it any wonder that people see them as nothing more than scrounging scum when they carry on the way they do. They should provide facilities on industrial estates and make that the only place they can stop and give the police the power to move them on.[/p][/quote]In two places your to has too many ohs.[/p][/quote]I most humbly apologise for my error and i will try not to do it again, i will now go and stand in the corner. ohec

5:05pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Niel says...

Hummm, gypsy bare knuckle fight's and the associated betting, dumped stolen cable strippings, wrecked vehicle's, feral children, yes I can understand why they don't want even a single pitch. It would start as a single pitch and grow from there, just like the other one's that have been allowed around the county.
Big county site's already exist, but are usually controlled by a single family, so if your face doesn't fit with them, even if the County say you can live there, you really wouldn't want to... They can't live with their own, so why should anybody else have to put up with them?
Hummm, gypsy bare knuckle fight's and the associated betting, dumped stolen cable strippings, wrecked vehicle's, feral children, yes I can understand why they don't want even a single pitch. It would start as a single pitch and grow from there, just like the other one's that have been allowed around the county. Big county site's already exist, but are usually controlled by a single family, so if your face doesn't fit with them, even if the County say you can live there, you really wouldn't want to... They can't live with their own, so why should anybody else have to put up with them? Niel

6:26pm Fri 7 Dec 12

Stillness says...

eurogordi wrote:
rich the stitch wrote:
It's not the fact they are an ethnic group, it's the total disregard for other people, their property and the disgusting mess they leave behind that people don’t like. Tell you what euro, why not have them set up camp near you?
Again, you need to distinguish between Romanies and Travellers.

I grew up in a village where gypsies (the Romany kind) lived. I went to school with their children while the adults sold pegs, flowers and sharpened tools around the village.

Yes, there was minor anti-social behaviour from time to time, but nothing to really worry about - probably because "anti-social behaviour" was not a phrase then.

I even went on TV with my father supporting the building of a permanent site, which led to my father being threatened by the new NIMBY arrivals who bought houses that were close to the then new M27 commuter route.

When was this? Almost 40 years ago, which shows how attitudes have failed to change throughout that time.

I admit to having little experence of the travelling (non-Romany) community, but those I have spoken to have usually been polite and respectful - which is more than can be said for the chavs in society who live in houses!
Whats with all the "distinguish" tripe? I don't give a flying frig who or what they are as long as they are prepared to live within the laws of the community that they live in. I can fully understand why some people would not want to be associated with the corrupt life style that the majority of us pursue and if their motives could be backed by their behavior I think that they would have a lot more support than they currently attract. Unfortunately some of the "traveling community" have chosen to become professional social scroungers and unless those in the traveling community who are committed to being self sufficient within the law are prepared to make a stand they will end up being eradicated. Some may call it social cleansing, others will call it evolution. It's a shame that the traveling community has failed to be self sufficient and have lost sight of what for years they held important. I look forward to being proved wrong.
[quote][p][bold]eurogordi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote: It's not the fact they are an ethnic group, it's the total disregard for other people, their property and the disgusting mess they leave behind that people don’t like. Tell you what euro, why not have them set up camp near you?[/p][/quote]Again, you need to distinguish between Romanies and Travellers. I grew up in a village where gypsies (the Romany kind) lived. I went to school with their children while the adults sold pegs, flowers and sharpened tools around the village. Yes, there was minor anti-social behaviour from time to time, but nothing to really worry about - probably because "anti-social behaviour" was not a phrase then. I even went on TV with my father supporting the building of a permanent site, which led to my father being threatened by the new NIMBY arrivals who bought houses that were close to the then new M27 commuter route. When was this? Almost 40 years ago, which shows how attitudes have failed to change throughout that time. I admit to having little experence of the travelling (non-Romany) community, but those I have spoken to have usually been polite and respectful - which is more than can be said for the chavs in society who live in houses![/p][/quote]Whats with all the "distinguish" tripe? I don't give a flying frig who or what they are as long as they are prepared to live within the laws of the community that they live in. I can fully understand why some people would not want to be associated with the corrupt life style that the majority of us pursue and if their motives could be backed by their behavior I think that they would have a lot more support than they currently attract. Unfortunately some of the "traveling community" have chosen to become professional social scroungers and unless those in the traveling community who are committed to being self sufficient within the law are prepared to make a stand they will end up being eradicated. Some may call it social cleansing, others will call it evolution. It's a shame that the traveling community has failed to be self sufficient and have lost sight of what for years they held important. I look forward to being proved wrong. Stillness

8:20pm Fri 7 Dec 12

bobbyboy says...

Its not so long ago we fought and won at Monksbrook Meadows we were called NIMBY'S by the head Gypsy at Kanes Hill when i asked him why cant your site be enlarged his reply was they are not Gypsies the same as us there a different sect so they would not be welcome and we were Nimby's.The same would have applied at Monksbrook Meadows what peoples failed to see at that time the LibDems who wanted it was also in power in Eastliegh.Southampto
ns section of the Monksbrook Meadows was not large enough for a proposed 12 site so they would have asked Hampshire County Council and Eastliegh Borough Council for some of thier lands so it went cap in hand that the 12 sight would have turned into a 20-30 site.The same will happen at Test Valley they will move in someone will go into hospital some more will come for support they then gets someone else into hospital and the local schools and before you know it you have a whole colony living there. As for the mess at Monksbrook Meadows dont get me started it took a year to clear it every known pathway leading to there encampment was used as a latreen boardwalks was pulled up and they deposited between the slats, fencing burnt, trees just planted disappeared and as for the Police well no comment is all i can say they were to frightened by the amount of paper work it would involved so it became a civil matter.Funny how they moved the same group out of the Forest after just three days we had 7 weeks of no go and strongly advised to stay away so get the drift and wise up if they are travelers then why do they drive round in better caravans than most of you own and better vehicles and use transits with trade logo's on the side.They cant do that in Southern Ireland where most come from. its against there LAW so why should we bend to it. By the way the ones that they represent are NOT the same as the fairground peoples who i have many friends with so i've seen all sides.
Its not so long ago we fought and won at Monksbrook Meadows we were called NIMBY'S by the head Gypsy at Kanes Hill when i asked him why cant your site be enlarged his reply was they are not Gypsies the same as us there a different sect so they would not be welcome and we were Nimby's.The same would have applied at Monksbrook Meadows what peoples failed to see at that time the LibDems who wanted it was also in power in Eastliegh.Southampto ns section of the Monksbrook Meadows was not large enough for a proposed 12 site so they would have asked Hampshire County Council and Eastliegh Borough Council for some of thier lands so it went cap in hand that the 12 sight would have turned into a 20-30 site.The same will happen at Test Valley they will move in someone will go into hospital some more will come for support they then gets someone else into hospital and the local schools and before you know it you have a whole colony living there. As for the mess at Monksbrook Meadows dont get me started it took a year to clear it every known pathway leading to there encampment was used as a latreen boardwalks was pulled up and they deposited between the slats, fencing burnt, trees just planted disappeared and as for the Police well no comment is all i can say they were to frightened by the amount of paper work it would involved so it became a civil matter.Funny how they moved the same group out of the Forest after just three days we had 7 weeks of no go and strongly advised to stay away so get the drift and wise up if they are travelers then why do they drive round in better caravans than most of you own and better vehicles and use transits with trade logo's on the side.They cant do that in Southern Ireland where most come from. its against there LAW so why should we bend to it. By the way the ones that they represent are NOT the same as the fairground peoples who i have many friends with so i've seen all sides. bobbyboy

8:27am Sat 8 Dec 12

Solomon's Boot says...

Sovietobserver wrote:
For a fine example of how our travelling community live when gifted with modern housing in the New Forest area take a panoramic gander on Google Street View at BH23 8DY.
Thank you Sovietobserver......
Sums it up nicely!!
[quote][p][bold]Sovietobserver[/bold] wrote: For a fine example of how our travelling community live when gifted with modern housing in the New Forest area take a panoramic gander on Google Street View at BH23 8DY.[/p][/quote]Thank you Sovietobserver...... Sums it up nicely!! Solomon's Boot

8:32am Sat 8 Dec 12

Solomon's Boot says...

Dasal wrote:
Would we treat other ethnic groups the same as this?

Simple - NO WE DON'T !!!
I think its called "Human Rights".............

...
....Because other 'ethnic groups' pay their taxes, don't create a filthy mess and cost taxpayers a fortune to clear up and rob from their neighbours.
[quote][p][bold]Dasal[/bold] wrote: Would we treat other ethnic groups the same as this? Simple - NO WE DON'T !!! I think its called "Human Rights"............. ...[/p][/quote]....Because other 'ethnic groups' pay their taxes, don't create a filthy mess and cost taxpayers a fortune to clear up and rob from their neighbours. Solomon's Boot

6:54pm Sun 9 Dec 12

flatoutchilled says...

Why should we help or support gypsies. It's simple. They pay no tax, we pay for their children to go to school. They leave filth, steal things and are cruel to their animals. I have seen gypsy and travellers horses and they are beaten, underweight and clearly not looked after.

If any group, does pay taxes, and are respectful then whoever that group is should be helped by society.

Do gypsies or travellers pay any tax the answer is NO… Do they contribute to society? The answer is no.

So they should have no rights WHATSOEVER.
Why should we help or support gypsies. It's simple. They pay no tax, we pay for their children to go to school. They leave filth, steal things and are cruel to their animals. I have seen gypsy and travellers horses and they are beaten, underweight and clearly not looked after. If any group, does pay taxes, and are respectful then whoever that group is should be helped by society. Do gypsies or travellers pay any tax the answer is NO… Do they contribute to society? The answer is no. So they should have no rights WHATSOEVER. flatoutchilled

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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