Southampton City Council takes allotment away from homeless man

Barry Compton on the allotment in Southampton

Barry Compton on the allotment in Southampton Buy this photo

First published in News

“I’VE lost everything in the world.”

Those are the words of a homeless Southampton man after he was stripped of his beloved allotment by council chiefs.

For six years, the plot, on the Witts Hill site, in Midanbury , was Barry Compton’s prized possession.

Tending to the allotment three days a week, the keen gardener grew a range of fruit, including strawberries, raspberries, blackcurrants and plums, transforming it into what he claims to be one of the most productive plots on the popular site.

And, after being made homeless a year ago, Barry, 61, even stored his remaining belongings, including a wedding ring from his first marriage and £600-worth of gardening tools, in the shed on plot three.

But after going on a two-week holiday to Dorset, Barry returned to find that the allotment had been repossessed, and the shed emptied. Barry, who has had no fixed address since being evicted from his former home in Whitworth Crescent, has been working as a computer programmer in Poole, from Monday to Thursday, where he stays in a bed-andbreakfast.

But he returns to live with a friend at weekends to tend the plot, until allotment bosses left him “gutted” by taking it from him.

He added: “The only thing I had left was at this allotment. I’ve lost everything in the world.

“The council said they sent me a letter in May, but they have my telephone number and email address and I told them I have no permanent home address.

“I have no idea why they have done this. This place is all I have left. I’m gutted.”

A fellow plot holder on the site, who asked not to be named, said: “Barry’s been here tending to his plot so there’s no reason why the council should take it off him.

“And breaking into his shed, as far as I’m concerned, is illegal. I will definitely help him try to keep the plot and get his stuff back.” Nick Yeats, the council’s allotments manager, said that the plot had been “left for a long time uncultivated”, adding that the council had given Barry 11 weeks to sort out the plot, after sending their initial letter in May.

He added: “As advised we sent our notices to the last address he gave us where we were told he would pick up his letters.

“The rule to cultivate allotments is to protect holders and to ensure that the allotments are regularly worked on.

“This is because there is a huge waiting list for residents who want to cultivate an allotment and it would be unfair on them if an allotment was left for a long time when it could be used by someone else.

“We have secured the gentleman’s gardening tools from the site and these will be handed back to the allotment holder as soon as he advises us when he wants them.”

Comments (45)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:26pm Thu 20 Sep 12

Saintlygirl says...

Poor Man - my heart truly goes out to him. This Council is heartless and cruel.
Poor Man - my heart truly goes out to him. This Council is heartless and cruel. Saintlygirl
  • Score: 0

1:34pm Thu 20 Sep 12

Scott_OOOSH says...

Rules are rules! Why should they change their procedures just because he has no permanent address??
Rules are rules! Why should they change their procedures just because he has no permanent address?? Scott_OOOSH
  • Score: -1

1:41pm Thu 20 Sep 12

lisa whitemore says...

Scott_OOOSH wrote:
Rules are rules! Why should they change their procedures just because he has no permanent address??
SCC AND LABOUR SHAME ON YOU AGAIN!!! Southampton sure is going downhill and fast!! Heartless,Cruel and Sooooooo WRONG!!
[quote][p][bold]Scott_OOOSH[/bold] wrote: Rules are rules! Why should they change their procedures just because he has no permanent address??[/p][/quote]SCC AND LABOUR SHAME ON YOU AGAIN!!! Southampton sure is going downhill and fast!! Heartless,Cruel and Sooooooo WRONG!! lisa whitemore
  • Score: 1

1:45pm Thu 20 Sep 12

Mr Price says...

SCC AND LABOUR SHAME ON YOU AGAIN!!! Southampton sure is going downhill and fast!! Heartless,Cruel and Sooooooo WRONG!!
SCC AND LABOUR SHAME ON YOU AGAIN!!! Southampton sure is going downhill and fast!! Heartless,Cruel and Sooooooo WRONG!! Mr Price
  • Score: 0

1:52pm Thu 20 Sep 12

bazzeroz says...

SCC has NOTHING better to do. Even his allotment neighbour said he WAS tending the plot. I was going to buy a new aerosole today but I think SCC beat me to it. (Play on words) SCC should be having a go at the residents that DON'T look after their gardens instead of this harassment.
SCC has NOTHING better to do. Even his allotment neighbour said he WAS tending the plot. I was going to buy a new aerosole today but I think SCC beat me to it. (Play on words) SCC should be having a go at the residents that DON'T look after their gardens instead of this harassment. bazzeroz
  • Score: 0

1:54pm Thu 20 Sep 12

Lone Ranger. says...

I wonder if the ex Sun headline writer could have used:-;
.
Homeless man gives up right to allotment.
.
Or ...... Man from Poole loses his allotment in Southampton.
.
Or .... Man doesnt update contact details so loses allotment.
.
Or ...... Keep your allotment cultivated or you could lose like this Southampton man.
.
I wonder if the ex Sun headline writer could have used:-; . Homeless man gives up right to allotment. . Or ...... Man from Poole loses his allotment in Southampton. . Or .... Man doesnt update contact details so loses allotment. . Or ...... Keep your allotment cultivated or you could lose like this Southampton man. . Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -1

1:55pm Thu 20 Sep 12

Scott_OOOSH says...

It says that they gave him 11 weeks to tidy his plot, so apparently he wasn't tending it that well! If it was anybody else then this wouldn't be a story. So why should the fact he has no permanent address make him any different?!
It says that they gave him 11 weeks to tidy his plot, so apparently he wasn't tending it that well! If it was anybody else then this wouldn't be a story. So why should the fact he has no permanent address make him any different?! Scott_OOOSH
  • Score: 0

1:55pm Thu 20 Sep 12

HillsidePaul says...

lisa whitemore wrote:
Scott_OOOSH wrote:
Rules are rules! Why should they change their procedures just because he has no permanent address??
SCC AND LABOUR SHAME ON YOU AGAIN!!! Southampton sure is going downhill and fast!! Heartless,Cruel and Sooooooo WRONG!!
Yet more inarticulate ranting from you.

What has this got to do with Labour, or come to that any politician. No Councillor will have had anything to do with this decision. It is the allotment manager you should be addressing.

If it is true that the plot has been unattended then the manager is doing the right thing. If however this is not the case then Mr Compton has been badly treated and should get his allotment back.
[quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scott_OOOSH[/bold] wrote: Rules are rules! Why should they change their procedures just because he has no permanent address??[/p][/quote]SCC AND LABOUR SHAME ON YOU AGAIN!!! Southampton sure is going downhill and fast!! Heartless,Cruel and Sooooooo WRONG!![/p][/quote]Yet more inarticulate ranting from you. What has this got to do with Labour, or come to that any politician. No Councillor will have had anything to do with this decision. It is the allotment manager you should be addressing. If it is true that the plot has been unattended then the manager is doing the right thing. If however this is not the case then Mr Compton has been badly treated and should get his allotment back. HillsidePaul
  • Score: 0

1:59pm Thu 20 Sep 12

BillyTheKid says...

Two different stories here : what the council says, and what the man says regarding the maintenance of the allotment. Then you begin to realise that the man's lifestyle seems to be somewhat unusual. Without a fixed address, or at least a regular postal address, I would have thought his life was bound to be rather complicated, with situations like this becoming more frequent.
Two different stories here : what the council says, and what the man says regarding the maintenance of the allotment. Then you begin to realise that the man's lifestyle seems to be somewhat unusual. Without a fixed address, or at least a regular postal address, I would have thought his life was bound to be rather complicated, with situations like this becoming more frequent. BillyTheKid
  • Score: 0

2:18pm Thu 20 Sep 12

southy says...

BillyTheKid wrote:
Two different stories here : what the council says, and what the man says regarding the maintenance of the allotment. Then you begin to realise that the man's lifestyle seems to be somewhat unusual. Without a fixed address, or at least a regular postal address, I would have thought his life was bound to be rather complicated, with situations like this becoming more frequent.
I would go on the picture, but first of all need to find out if that is an Echo Photographer thats taken the Picture, If the Picture was taking by the Echo then that is not an unkept Allotment by one that is being work on, if how ever the picture was taken by some one else and sent in would need to know when that picture was taken.

So Echo did your people take that picture or was it sent into you.
[quote][p][bold]BillyTheKid[/bold] wrote: Two different stories here : what the council says, and what the man says regarding the maintenance of the allotment. Then you begin to realise that the man's lifestyle seems to be somewhat unusual. Without a fixed address, or at least a regular postal address, I would have thought his life was bound to be rather complicated, with situations like this becoming more frequent.[/p][/quote]I would go on the picture, but first of all need to find out if that is an Echo Photographer thats taken the Picture, If the Picture was taking by the Echo then that is not an unkept Allotment by one that is being work on, if how ever the picture was taken by some one else and sent in would need to know when that picture was taken. So Echo did your people take that picture or was it sent into you. southy
  • Score: 0

2:19pm Thu 20 Sep 12

Georgem says...

It's a bit misleading to call him 'homeless'. Sure, technically, he is, but when we read the headline, we instantly think of some evil council monster, victimising someone who's living on the streets. This guy has a job, and a roof over his head.
It's a bit misleading to call him 'homeless'. Sure, technically, he is, but when we read the headline, we instantly think of some evil council monster, victimising someone who's living on the streets. This guy has a job, and a roof over his head. Georgem
  • Score: 0

2:21pm Thu 20 Sep 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
BillyTheKid wrote:
Two different stories here : what the council says, and what the man says regarding the maintenance of the allotment. Then you begin to realise that the man's lifestyle seems to be somewhat unusual. Without a fixed address, or at least a regular postal address, I would have thought his life was bound to be rather complicated, with situations like this becoming more frequent.
I would go on the picture, but first of all need to find out if that is an Echo Photographer thats taken the Picture, If the Picture was taking by the Echo then that is not an unkept Allotment by one that is being work on, if how ever the picture was taken by some one else and sent in would need to know when that picture was taken.

So Echo did your people take that picture or was it sent into you.
Since the allotment was taken away from him prior to his approaching the Echo, and he's in it, I reckon we can assume the photo was not taken by the Echo.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BillyTheKid[/bold] wrote: Two different stories here : what the council says, and what the man says regarding the maintenance of the allotment. Then you begin to realise that the man's lifestyle seems to be somewhat unusual. Without a fixed address, or at least a regular postal address, I would have thought his life was bound to be rather complicated, with situations like this becoming more frequent.[/p][/quote]I would go on the picture, but first of all need to find out if that is an Echo Photographer thats taken the Picture, If the Picture was taking by the Echo then that is not an unkept Allotment by one that is being work on, if how ever the picture was taken by some one else and sent in would need to know when that picture was taken. So Echo did your people take that picture or was it sent into you.[/p][/quote]Since the allotment was taken away from him prior to his approaching the Echo, and he's in it, I reckon we can assume the photo was not taken by the Echo. Georgem
  • Score: 0

2:31pm Thu 20 Sep 12

Scott_OOOSH says...

If it was taken by the Echo, after he had the land removed from him, then he is clearly trespassing and should be prosecuted! Mwahaha!
If it was taken by the Echo, after he had the land removed from him, then he is clearly trespassing and should be prosecuted! Mwahaha! Scott_OOOSH
  • Score: 0

2:36pm Thu 20 Sep 12

Huffter says...

Scott_OOOSH wrote:
If it was taken by the Echo, after he had the land removed from him, then he is clearly trespassing and should be prosecuted! Mwahaha!
You cannot be prosecuted for trespassing - it's a civil, not a criminal offence.
[quote][p][bold]Scott_OOOSH[/bold] wrote: If it was taken by the Echo, after he had the land removed from him, then he is clearly trespassing and should be prosecuted! Mwahaha![/p][/quote]You cannot be prosecuted for trespassing - it's a civil, not a criminal offence. Huffter
  • Score: 0

2:41pm Thu 20 Sep 12

Scott_OOOSH says...

And here I was believing the signs I've frequently seen saying 'Private property - Trespassers will be prosecuted'
And here I was believing the signs I've frequently seen saying 'Private property - Trespassers will be prosecuted' Scott_OOOSH
  • Score: 0

2:45pm Thu 20 Sep 12

Georgem says...

Scott_OOOSH wrote:
And here I was believing the signs I've frequently seen saying 'Private property - Trespassers will be prosecuted'
Wow. So if I put a sign up saying "Scott_OOOSH owes me £50,000" you'll believe that, too?

Those signs are meaningless. Ask anybody with a modicum of legal knowledge.
[quote][p][bold]Scott_OOOSH[/bold] wrote: And here I was believing the signs I've frequently seen saying 'Private property - Trespassers will be prosecuted'[/p][/quote]Wow. So if I put a sign up saying "Scott_OOOSH owes me £50,000" you'll believe that, too? Those signs are meaningless. Ask anybody with a modicum of legal knowledge. Georgem
  • Score: 0

2:52pm Thu 20 Sep 12

Scott_OOOSH says...

Yes. I am easily convinced and naturally believe everything I read.

To think of all the good times I wasted as a kid by not trespassing on every place with a sign!!
Yes. I am easily convinced and naturally believe everything I read. To think of all the good times I wasted as a kid by not trespassing on every place with a sign!! Scott_OOOSH
  • Score: 0

2:53pm Thu 20 Sep 12

Scott_OOOSH says...

Yes. I am easily convinced and naturally believe everything I read.

To think of all the good times I wasted as a kid by not trespassing on every place with a sign!!
Yes. I am easily convinced and naturally believe everything I read. To think of all the good times I wasted as a kid by not trespassing on every place with a sign!! Scott_OOOSH
  • Score: 0

2:56pm Thu 20 Sep 12

Georgem says...

Scott_OOOSH wrote:
Yes. I am easily convinced and naturally believe everything I read.

To think of all the good times I wasted as a kid by not trespassing on every place with a sign!!
Cool. So when can I have the money you owe me?
[quote][p][bold]Scott_OOOSH[/bold] wrote: Yes. I am easily convinced and naturally believe everything I read. To think of all the good times I wasted as a kid by not trespassing on every place with a sign!![/p][/quote]Cool. So when can I have the money you owe me? Georgem
  • Score: 0

2:58pm Thu 20 Sep 12

Scott_OOOSH says...

I'm saving hard right now and will let you know as soon as I have the money!
Who knows, I might get lucky with this weekend's Euro Millions, so you could have your money a lot sooner!
I'm saving hard right now and will let you know as soon as I have the money! Who knows, I might get lucky with this weekend's Euro Millions, so you could have your money a lot sooner! Scott_OOOSH
  • Score: 0

3:02pm Thu 20 Sep 12

Georgem says...

Scott_OOOSH wrote:
I'm saving hard right now and will let you know as soon as I have the money!
Who knows, I might get lucky with this weekend's Euro Millions, so you could have your money a lot sooner!
I can't wait!
[quote][p][bold]Scott_OOOSH[/bold] wrote: I'm saving hard right now and will let you know as soon as I have the money! Who knows, I might get lucky with this weekend's Euro Millions, so you could have your money a lot sooner![/p][/quote]I can't wait! Georgem
  • Score: 0

3:14pm Thu 20 Sep 12

espanuel says...

Georgem, you are correct you cannot be prosecuted if you are trespassing it is a civil matter, it is upto the owner if you persist on trespassing on private land to take you to court.
Georgem, you are correct you cannot be prosecuted if you are trespassing it is a civil matter, it is upto the owner if you persist on trespassing on private land to take you to court. espanuel
  • Score: 0

3:17pm Thu 20 Sep 12

Georgem says...

espanuel wrote:
Georgem, you are correct you cannot be prosecuted if you are trespassing it is a civil matter, it is upto the owner if you persist on trespassing on private land to take you to court.
It was Huffter who brought it up.
[quote][p][bold]espanuel[/bold] wrote: Georgem, you are correct you cannot be prosecuted if you are trespassing it is a civil matter, it is upto the owner if you persist on trespassing on private land to take you to court.[/p][/quote]It was Huffter who brought it up. Georgem
  • Score: 0

3:21pm Thu 20 Sep 12

Paramjit Bahia says...

HillsidePaul wrote:
lisa whitemore wrote:
Scott_OOOSH wrote:
Rules are rules! Why should they change their procedures just because he has no permanent address??
SCC AND LABOUR SHAME ON YOU AGAIN!!! Southampton sure is going downhill and fast!! Heartless,Cruel and Sooooooo WRONG!!
Yet more inarticulate ranting from you.

What has this got to do with Labour, or come to that any politician. No Councillor will have had anything to do with this decision. It is the allotment manager you should be addressing.

If it is true that the plot has been unattended then the manager is doing the right thing. If however this is not the case then Mr Compton has been badly treated and should get his allotment back.
It has everything to do with NuLabour because hypocrite Milliband’s local mob which has become specialist in finding banana skins and led by Dear Leader happen to be in charge. So if so called officers do something wrong buck stops with people on the very top.

If pen pushers are allowed to become virtual masters of so called Councillors, problems like this become unavoidable.

Only going on info in this news item, this mess may have various angles.

Have the so called officers, who in democracy should in fact be servants of the people, made one of their usual mistakes of jumping the gun? Having dropped themselves into the thick stuff are they now covering the tracks as per their usual practise by splitting hairs with bureaucratic lingo?

Or could it be that Mr. Compton is pulling a fast one?

I think this case needs looking into by the political bosses with open mind and with strong knees to be able to tell the truth to whoever may be wrong. Certainly with ability to kick bureaucratic back sides if that turns out to be the case.

Considering there are other allotment holders on the same site, they may be able to provide some evidence if this man worked his patch or not.

As this year it kept on raining more than normal, it may be the reason why/IF the plot was over grown because it was not worked upon due to weather. As it has happened in even in places owned by the Council itself. (Meeting in Lordshill was told that by one of Dear Leaders poodles)

Yes Mr. Compton should have taken more precautions to keep the Council informed on regarding contact details, and I think it was his big mistake to store expensive possession like a valuable ring in that shed (Big problem when poor guy is already homeless).

But if the Council had his e-mail why that was not used to contact the chap and ask him what was he doing with that allotment. That would also have been cheaper process for Council that pretends to be poor and is cutting jobs.

I have the feeling that people we have put into political power have forgotten their role in democracy. I doubt it if they are going to independently review this case. Because as it emerged at the last Council meeting Dear Leader hardly ever goes to Civic Centre because he is too busy with is yuppie life style and leaves the place in the hands of his Deputy Controller who has already admitted authorising statement full of lies about Cllr. Morrell's health.

Can such people really be trusted to look into cases with compassion for a homeless person and stay neutral without taking side of pen pushers?...
Expecting to be guardians of fair play from such politicians may be asking bit of too much.
[quote][p][bold]HillsidePaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scott_OOOSH[/bold] wrote: Rules are rules! Why should they change their procedures just because he has no permanent address??[/p][/quote]SCC AND LABOUR SHAME ON YOU AGAIN!!! Southampton sure is going downhill and fast!! Heartless,Cruel and Sooooooo WRONG!![/p][/quote]Yet more inarticulate ranting from you. What has this got to do with Labour, or come to that any politician. No Councillor will have had anything to do with this decision. It is the allotment manager you should be addressing. If it is true that the plot has been unattended then the manager is doing the right thing. If however this is not the case then Mr Compton has been badly treated and should get his allotment back.[/p][/quote]It has everything to do with NuLabour because hypocrite Milliband’s local mob which has become specialist in finding banana skins and led by Dear Leader happen to be in charge. So if so called officers do something wrong buck stops with people on the very top. If pen pushers are allowed to become virtual masters of so called Councillors, problems like this become unavoidable. Only going on info in this news item, this mess may have various angles. Have the so called officers, who in democracy should in fact be servants of the people, made one of their usual mistakes of jumping the gun? Having dropped themselves into the thick stuff are they now covering the tracks as per their usual practise by splitting hairs with bureaucratic lingo? Or could it be that Mr. Compton is pulling a fast one? I think this case needs looking into by the political bosses with open mind and with strong knees to be able to tell the truth to whoever may be wrong. Certainly with ability to kick bureaucratic back sides if that turns out to be the case. Considering there are other allotment holders on the same site, they may be able to provide some evidence if this man worked his patch or not. As this year it kept on raining more than normal, it may be the reason why/IF the plot was over grown because it was not worked upon due to weather. As it has happened in even in places owned by the Council itself. (Meeting in Lordshill was told that by one of Dear Leaders poodles) Yes Mr. Compton should have taken more precautions to keep the Council informed on regarding contact details, and I think it was his big mistake to store expensive possession like a valuable ring in that shed (Big problem when poor guy is already homeless). But if the Council had his e-mail why that was not used to contact the chap and ask him what was he doing with that allotment. That would also have been cheaper process for Council that pretends to be poor and is cutting jobs. I have the feeling that people we have put into political power have forgotten their role in democracy. I doubt it if they are going to independently review this case. Because as it emerged at the last Council meeting Dear Leader hardly ever goes to Civic Centre because he is too busy with is yuppie life style and leaves the place in the hands of his Deputy Controller who has already admitted authorising statement full of lies about Cllr. Morrell's health. Can such people really be trusted to look into cases with compassion for a homeless person and stay neutral without taking side of pen pushers?... Expecting to be guardians of fair play from such politicians may be asking bit of too much. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

3:36pm Thu 20 Sep 12

Linesman says...

HillsidePaul wrote:
lisa whitemore wrote:
Scott_OOOSH wrote:
Rules are rules! Why should they change their procedures just because he has no permanent address??
SCC AND LABOUR SHAME ON YOU AGAIN!!! Southampton sure is going downhill and fast!! Heartless,Cruel and Sooooooo WRONG!!
Yet more inarticulate ranting from you.

What has this got to do with Labour, or come to that any politician. No Councillor will have had anything to do with this decision. It is the allotment manager you should be addressing.

If it is true that the plot has been unattended then the manager is doing the right thing. If however this is not the case then Mr Compton has been badly treated and should get his allotment back.
That is correct. A Council 'Jobsworth' has taken this decision.

Only an idiot would think that this was a decision that was decided at a meeting of the full council.

Of course, I would not be at all surprised if Royston Smith attempted to make political capital out of it.
[quote][p][bold]HillsidePaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scott_OOOSH[/bold] wrote: Rules are rules! Why should they change their procedures just because he has no permanent address??[/p][/quote]SCC AND LABOUR SHAME ON YOU AGAIN!!! Southampton sure is going downhill and fast!! Heartless,Cruel and Sooooooo WRONG!![/p][/quote]Yet more inarticulate ranting from you. What has this got to do with Labour, or come to that any politician. No Councillor will have had anything to do with this decision. It is the allotment manager you should be addressing. If it is true that the plot has been unattended then the manager is doing the right thing. If however this is not the case then Mr Compton has been badly treated and should get his allotment back.[/p][/quote]That is correct. A Council 'Jobsworth' has taken this decision. Only an idiot would think that this was a decision that was decided at a meeting of the full council. Of course, I would not be at all surprised if Royston Smith attempted to make political capital out of it. Linesman
  • Score: 0

3:53pm Thu 20 Sep 12

loosehead says...

I have an allotment in Borrowdale Road if you change address you have to inform the council so as he didn't he was in the wrong.
On our site we have many plots uncultivated & the allotments supervisor/manageres
s Sue ashdown has a plot there.
we have been trying to get here to come down on the plot holders who do nothing but cut the weeds down once a year & as of now nothing has been done.
It's not fair on other allotment holders as the weeds spread to their plots also those overgrown plots are a great breeding ground for slugs & snails.
If this guy can sort it out fine but maybe he could apply to move to our site as we have people like him who are great allotment holders & if it's true about him he would be very welcomed
I have an allotment in Borrowdale Road if you change address you have to inform the council so as he didn't he was in the wrong. On our site we have many plots uncultivated & the allotments supervisor/manageres s Sue ashdown has a plot there. we have been trying to get here to come down on the plot holders who do nothing but cut the weeds down once a year & as of now nothing has been done. It's not fair on other allotment holders as the weeds spread to their plots also those overgrown plots are a great breeding ground for slugs & snails. If this guy can sort it out fine but maybe he could apply to move to our site as we have people like him who are great allotment holders & if it's true about him he would be very welcomed loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:59pm Thu 20 Sep 12

KA says...

Forgive me if i sound a bit thick.. So he's living in bb during the week and stays with a friend at weekends.. how is he homeless Echo!... but do feel sorry for him..
Forgive me if i sound a bit thick.. So he's living in bb during the week and stays with a friend at weekends.. how is he homeless Echo!... but do feel sorry for him.. KA
  • Score: 0

4:01pm Thu 20 Sep 12

loosehead says...

KA wrote:
Forgive me if i sound a bit thick.. So he's living in bb during the week and stays with a friend at weekends.. how is he homeless Echo!... but do feel sorry for him..
I don't know the laws but is he entitled to an allotment inside the city if he doesn't live in the city?
[quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: Forgive me if i sound a bit thick.. So he's living in bb during the week and stays with a friend at weekends.. how is he homeless Echo!... but do feel sorry for him..[/p][/quote]I don't know the laws but is he entitled to an allotment inside the city if he doesn't live in the city? loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:02pm Thu 20 Sep 12

roofspace says...

Is it pure coincidence that a SCC AND LABOUR SHAME ON YOU AGAIN!!! Southampton sure is going downhill and fast!! Heartless,Cruel and Sooooooo WRONG!!lisa whitemore says on
1:41pm Thu 20 Sep 12

"SCC AND LABOUR SHAME ON YOU AGAIN!!! Southampton sure is going downhill and fast!! Heartless,Cruel and Sooooooo WRONG!!"

And lo and behold FOUR minutes later at 1:45pm Thu 20 Sep 12
a Mr Price says...

"SCC AND LABOUR SHAME ON YOU AGAIN!!! Southampton sure is going downhill and fast!! Heartless,Cruel and Sooooooo WRONG!!

With EXACTLY the same comment AND punctuation, both slagging off the New Labour council

The raving right-wing of the neocon Conservative Party must be pretty desperate getting their sycophants to post erroneous comments
Is it pure coincidence that a SCC AND LABOUR SHAME ON YOU AGAIN!!! Southampton sure is going downhill and fast!! Heartless,Cruel and Sooooooo WRONG!!lisa whitemore says on 1:41pm Thu 20 Sep 12 "SCC AND LABOUR SHAME ON YOU AGAIN!!! Southampton sure is going downhill and fast!! Heartless,Cruel and Sooooooo WRONG!!" And lo and behold FOUR minutes later at 1:45pm Thu 20 Sep 12 a Mr Price says... "SCC AND LABOUR SHAME ON YOU AGAIN!!! Southampton sure is going downhill and fast!! Heartless,Cruel and Sooooooo WRONG!! With EXACTLY the same comment AND punctuation, both slagging off the New Labour council The raving right-wing of the neocon Conservative Party must be pretty desperate getting their sycophants to post erroneous comments roofspace
  • Score: 0

4:03pm Thu 20 Sep 12

Georgem says...

KA wrote:
Forgive me if i sound a bit thick.. So he's living in bb during the week and stays with a friend at weekends.. how is he homeless Echo!... but do feel sorry for him..
He has no fixed address. Yeh, technically homeless, but not really.
[quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: Forgive me if i sound a bit thick.. So he's living in bb during the week and stays with a friend at weekends.. how is he homeless Echo!... but do feel sorry for him..[/p][/quote]He has no fixed address. Yeh, technically homeless, but not really. Georgem
  • Score: 0

4:13pm Thu 20 Sep 12

bigfella777 says...

Whats the point of growing fruit or veg if you have got nowhere to cook or eat them?
More like he was dossing down in that shed.
Whats the point of growing fruit or veg if you have got nowhere to cook or eat them? More like he was dossing down in that shed. bigfella777
  • Score: 0

4:27pm Thu 20 Sep 12

Georgem says...

bigfella777 wrote:
Whats the point of growing fruit or veg if you have got nowhere to cook or eat them?
More like he was dossing down in that shed.
Did you even read the story?
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: Whats the point of growing fruit or veg if you have got nowhere to cook or eat them? More like he was dossing down in that shed.[/p][/quote]Did you even read the story? Georgem
  • Score: 0

4:53pm Thu 20 Sep 12

Shoong says...

Linesman wrote:
HillsidePaul wrote:
lisa whitemore wrote:
Scott_OOOSH wrote:
Rules are rules! Why should they change their procedures just because he has no permanent address??
SCC AND LABOUR SHAME ON YOU AGAIN!!! Southampton sure is going downhill and fast!! Heartless,Cruel and Sooooooo WRONG!!
Yet more inarticulate ranting from you.

What has this got to do with Labour, or come to that any politician. No Councillor will have had anything to do with this decision. It is the allotment manager you should be addressing.

If it is true that the plot has been unattended then the manager is doing the right thing. If however this is not the case then Mr Compton has been badly treated and should get his allotment back.
That is correct. A Council 'Jobsworth' has taken this decision.

Only an idiot would think that this was a decision that was decided at a meeting of the full council.

Of course, I would not be at all surprised if Royston Smith attempted to make political capital out of it.
Is it actually possible for you to comment on any story, regardless of the subject, without mentioning the Tories, Afghanistan or Royston Smith?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HillsidePaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scott_OOOSH[/bold] wrote: Rules are rules! Why should they change their procedures just because he has no permanent address??[/p][/quote]SCC AND LABOUR SHAME ON YOU AGAIN!!! Southampton sure is going downhill and fast!! Heartless,Cruel and Sooooooo WRONG!![/p][/quote]Yet more inarticulate ranting from you. What has this got to do with Labour, or come to that any politician. No Councillor will have had anything to do with this decision. It is the allotment manager you should be addressing. If it is true that the plot has been unattended then the manager is doing the right thing. If however this is not the case then Mr Compton has been badly treated and should get his allotment back.[/p][/quote]That is correct. A Council 'Jobsworth' has taken this decision. Only an idiot would think that this was a decision that was decided at a meeting of the full council. Of course, I would not be at all surprised if Royston Smith attempted to make political capital out of it.[/p][/quote]Is it actually possible for you to comment on any story, regardless of the subject, without mentioning the Tories, Afghanistan or Royston Smith? Shoong
  • Score: 0

5:10pm Thu 20 Sep 12

BillyTheKid says...

Ladies and gentlemen, can we have a big round of applause for George and Scott ! Great bit of spontaneous entertainment back there. Clean, healthy fun that hurt nobody.
Ladies and gentlemen, can we have a big round of applause for George and Scott ! Great bit of spontaneous entertainment back there. Clean, healthy fun that hurt nobody. BillyTheKid
  • Score: 0

5:28pm Thu 20 Sep 12

Dresnez says...

The man is 61yrs old, has a job and is trying his best to make his way in life after losing his home one year ago. For six years, the plot, on the Witts Hill site, in Midanbury , was Barry Compton’s prized possession.

Why didn't they leave a note in his garden shed?

Must have come as quite a blow to him,

The trouble with council workers is that they tick boxes. They sent the letter and so have discharged their duty in notifying him. His living arrangements at the moment are fluid and they can't cope with this state of affairs.

I do hope the Labour councillor contacts him and straightens things out for him.

He is no different to someone who works on London, stays over Mon-Fri and lives in Soton at weekends.

Economically it is probably not worth his while to let a room so he stays with friends. These are hard times.
The man is 61yrs old, has a job and is trying his best to make his way in life after losing his home one year ago. For six years, the plot, on the Witts Hill site, in Midanbury , was Barry Compton’s prized possession. Why didn't they leave a note in his garden shed? Must have come as quite a blow to him, The trouble with council workers is that they tick boxes. They sent the letter and so have discharged their duty in notifying him. His living arrangements at the moment are fluid and they can't cope with this state of affairs. I do hope the Labour councillor contacts him and straightens things out for him. He is no different to someone who works on London, stays over Mon-Fri and lives in Soton at weekends. Economically it is probably not worth his while to let a room so he stays with friends. These are hard times. Dresnez
  • Score: 0

6:08pm Thu 20 Sep 12

KA says...

I agree but.. he's not homeless as headline stated..:D As i said before i feel sorry for him i know how much having a garden can mean and agree SCC could have done more.
I agree but.. he's not homeless as headline stated..:D As i said before i feel sorry for him i know how much having a garden can mean and agree SCC could have done more. KA
  • Score: 0

6:35pm Thu 20 Sep 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

First a child's bike, now a mans most prized possessions after breaking and entering illegally into his shed, what will they steal next? Someones car because it's parked on double yellows outside their house even though it has a blue badge clearly displayed and is obviously the property of someone with impaired mobility? (I am right in thinking a blue badge lets you park on double yellows aren't I? If not then ignore the bit about double yellows.)
First a child's bike, now a mans most prized possessions after breaking and entering illegally into his shed, what will they steal next? Someones car because it's parked on double yellows outside their house even though it has a blue badge clearly displayed and is obviously the property of someone with impaired mobility? (I am right in thinking a blue badge lets you park on double yellows aren't I? If not then ignore the bit about double yellows.) Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

6:55pm Thu 20 Sep 12

andysaints007 says...

KA wrote:
I agree but.. he's not homeless as headline stated..:D As i said before i feel sorry for him i know how much having a garden can mean and agree SCC could have done more.
It all depends if he is on the Electoral Roll - which I doubt he is - so technically, yes he is homeless!
[quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: I agree but.. he's not homeless as headline stated..:D As i said before i feel sorry for him i know how much having a garden can mean and agree SCC could have done more.[/p][/quote]It all depends if he is on the Electoral Roll - which I doubt he is - so technically, yes he is homeless! andysaints007
  • Score: 0

8:24pm Thu 20 Sep 12

skin2000 says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
I wonder if the ex Sun headline writer could have used:-;
.
Homeless man gives up right to allotment.
.
Or ...... Man from Poole loses his allotment in Southampton.
.
Or .... Man doesnt update contact details so loses allotment.
.
Or ...... Keep your allotment cultivated or you could lose like this Southampton man.
.
I go for C, (not homeless, lives with a friend)
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: I wonder if the ex Sun headline writer could have used:-; . Homeless man gives up right to allotment. . Or ...... Man from Poole loses his allotment in Southampton. . Or .... Man doesnt update contact details so loses allotment. . Or ...... Keep your allotment cultivated or you could lose like this Southampton man. .[/p][/quote]I go for C, (not homeless, lives with a friend) skin2000
  • Score: 0

9:06pm Thu 20 Sep 12

waltons11 says...

My neighbour moved in 2 years ago to a council house and has never cut her lawn in the back or front of her house which now resembles a small jungle. She was prioritised for a house as 2 of her children have learning difficulties and none of them ever go in the garden. She should have just stayed in her flat and let someone who really wanted a garden have the house. I thought that part of the tenancy agreement was to keep the gardens neat and tidy. There is another house 2 doors away from her also competing to see who can have the longest grass - that house has had thousands spent on it to be adapted for the disabled wife - she is not actually disabled just very fat - all her own doing!! So my question is why don't they evict these troublesome people too??
My neighbour moved in 2 years ago to a council house and has never cut her lawn in the back or front of her house which now resembles a small jungle. She was prioritised for a house as 2 of her children have learning difficulties and none of them ever go in the garden. She should have just stayed in her flat and let someone who really wanted a garden have the house. I thought that part of the tenancy agreement was to keep the gardens neat and tidy. There is another house 2 doors away from her also competing to see who can have the longest grass - that house has had thousands spent on it to be adapted for the disabled wife - she is not actually disabled just very fat - all her own doing!! So my question is why don't they evict these troublesome people too?? waltons11
  • Score: 0

9:08pm Thu 20 Sep 12

loosehead says...

Sorry but what happened to the change address inform them didn't he understand?
If they have sent him a letter & he hasn't responded then the plot will be no longer his as he will be evicted.
He found work & accommodation & sorry under the rules he should have contacted Sue ashdown or his site Rep explained what was going on.
If he was there every weekend as he claims his site shouldn't need clearing of weeds so he wouldn't be evicted for that.
My guess is someone has reported him for what I don't know.
On weekends a couple of lads on our site have a few beers together & sleep it off in their sheds so I can't see that being a problem or does someone on his site want shot of him?
Their seems to be more than we've heard going on here
Sorry but what happened to the change address inform them didn't he understand? If they have sent him a letter & he hasn't responded then the plot will be no longer his as he will be evicted. He found work & accommodation & sorry under the rules he should have contacted Sue ashdown or his site Rep explained what was going on. If he was there every weekend as he claims his site shouldn't need clearing of weeds so he wouldn't be evicted for that. My guess is someone has reported him for what I don't know. On weekends a couple of lads on our site have a few beers together & sleep it off in their sheds so I can't see that being a problem or does someone on his site want shot of him? Their seems to be more than we've heard going on here loosehead
  • Score: 0

10:08pm Thu 20 Sep 12

skin2000 says...

Why didn't he keep the ring in his pocket? Bit risky leaving it in the shed.
Why didn't he keep the ring in his pocket? Bit risky leaving it in the shed. skin2000
  • Score: 0

5:46am Fri 21 Sep 12

freemantlegirl2 says...

waltons11 wrote:
My neighbour moved in 2 years ago to a council house and has never cut her lawn in the back or front of her house which now resembles a small jungle. She was prioritised for a house as 2 of her children have learning difficulties and none of them ever go in the garden. She should have just stayed in her flat and let someone who really wanted a garden have the house. I thought that part of the tenancy agreement was to keep the gardens neat and tidy. There is another house 2 doors away from her also competing to see who can have the longest grass - that house has had thousands spent on it to be adapted for the disabled wife - she is not actually disabled just very fat - all her own doing!! So my question is why don't they evict these troublesome people too??
And you have possession of this woman's medical records do you?
why don't you offer to help instead of b*tching away behind your curtains! pathetic...

As for this story - LOL at the ranting and blaming the Labour administration, this is an officer decicision pure and simple. it does seem harsh but what can the council do if they haven't had response to their letters? why can't his letters go to the place he stays at the weekend? technically if he's no longer on the electorial role in Soton then he's not a resident, sad as that is then he technically does not have a right to have a plot here. Why is he using his shed for storage? Wedding ring in an allotment shed is pure silliness! (if it's true, we only have his word for it). Whilst i sympathise he's doing his best to keep his head above water, perhaps he should have talked to the council, kept them informed of addresses etc. the first thing they will have done is look on the electoral role. They can only act on information they have not on what this guy chose not to give them.....

If the guy puts himself on the role at this friend's address that's fine, but I suspect that isn't the case. These are tough times, but the council also has to be tough. And i should look to his fellow allotment holders as the ones who dobbed him in!
[quote][p][bold]waltons11[/bold] wrote: My neighbour moved in 2 years ago to a council house and has never cut her lawn in the back or front of her house which now resembles a small jungle. She was prioritised for a house as 2 of her children have learning difficulties and none of them ever go in the garden. She should have just stayed in her flat and let someone who really wanted a garden have the house. I thought that part of the tenancy agreement was to keep the gardens neat and tidy. There is another house 2 doors away from her also competing to see who can have the longest grass - that house has had thousands spent on it to be adapted for the disabled wife - she is not actually disabled just very fat - all her own doing!! So my question is why don't they evict these troublesome people too??[/p][/quote]And you have possession of this woman's medical records do you? why don't you offer to help instead of b*tching away behind your curtains! pathetic... As for this story - LOL at the ranting and blaming the Labour administration, this is an officer decicision pure and simple. it does seem harsh but what can the council do if they haven't had response to their letters? why can't his letters go to the place he stays at the weekend? technically if he's no longer on the electorial role in Soton then he's not a resident, sad as that is then he technically does not have a right to have a plot here. Why is he using his shed for storage? Wedding ring in an allotment shed is pure silliness! (if it's true, we only have his word for it). Whilst i sympathise he's doing his best to keep his head above water, perhaps he should have talked to the council, kept them informed of addresses etc. the first thing they will have done is look on the electoral role. They can only act on information they have not on what this guy chose not to give them..... If the guy puts himself on the role at this friend's address that's fine, but I suspect that isn't the case. These are tough times, but the council also has to be tough. And i should look to his fellow allotment holders as the ones who dobbed him in! freemantlegirl2
  • Score: 0

7:39am Fri 21 Sep 12

loosehead says...

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
waltons11 wrote:
My neighbour moved in 2 years ago to a council house and has never cut her lawn in the back or front of her house which now resembles a small jungle. She was prioritised for a house as 2 of her children have learning difficulties and none of them ever go in the garden. She should have just stayed in her flat and let someone who really wanted a garden have the house. I thought that part of the tenancy agreement was to keep the gardens neat and tidy. There is another house 2 doors away from her also competing to see who can have the longest grass - that house has had thousands spent on it to be adapted for the disabled wife - she is not actually disabled just very fat - all her own doing!! So my question is why don't they evict these troublesome people too??
And you have possession of this woman's medical records do you?
why don't you offer to help instead of b*tching away behind your curtains! pathetic...

As for this story - LOL at the ranting and blaming the Labour administration, this is an officer decicision pure and simple. it does seem harsh but what can the council do if they haven't had response to their letters? why can't his letters go to the place he stays at the weekend? technically if he's no longer on the electorial role in Soton then he's not a resident, sad as that is then he technically does not have a right to have a plot here. Why is he using his shed for storage? Wedding ring in an allotment shed is pure silliness! (if it's true, we only have his word for it). Whilst i sympathise he's doing his best to keep his head above water, perhaps he should have talked to the council, kept them informed of addresses etc. the first thing they will have done is look on the electoral role. They can only act on information they have not on what this guy chose not to give them.....

If the guy puts himself on the role at this friend's address that's fine, but I suspect that isn't the case. These are tough times, but the council also has to be tough. And i should look to his fellow allotment holders as the ones who dobbed him in!
I have to agree with you as this could/would have happened no matter who was in power.
We've had our padlocks cut open so leaving anything personal or valuable in the sheds is stupid
[quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]waltons11[/bold] wrote: My neighbour moved in 2 years ago to a council house and has never cut her lawn in the back or front of her house which now resembles a small jungle. She was prioritised for a house as 2 of her children have learning difficulties and none of them ever go in the garden. She should have just stayed in her flat and let someone who really wanted a garden have the house. I thought that part of the tenancy agreement was to keep the gardens neat and tidy. There is another house 2 doors away from her also competing to see who can have the longest grass - that house has had thousands spent on it to be adapted for the disabled wife - she is not actually disabled just very fat - all her own doing!! So my question is why don't they evict these troublesome people too??[/p][/quote]And you have possession of this woman's medical records do you? why don't you offer to help instead of b*tching away behind your curtains! pathetic... As for this story - LOL at the ranting and blaming the Labour administration, this is an officer decicision pure and simple. it does seem harsh but what can the council do if they haven't had response to their letters? why can't his letters go to the place he stays at the weekend? technically if he's no longer on the electorial role in Soton then he's not a resident, sad as that is then he technically does not have a right to have a plot here. Why is he using his shed for storage? Wedding ring in an allotment shed is pure silliness! (if it's true, we only have his word for it). Whilst i sympathise he's doing his best to keep his head above water, perhaps he should have talked to the council, kept them informed of addresses etc. the first thing they will have done is look on the electoral role. They can only act on information they have not on what this guy chose not to give them..... If the guy puts himself on the role at this friend's address that's fine, but I suspect that isn't the case. These are tough times, but the council also has to be tough. And i should look to his fellow allotment holders as the ones who dobbed him in![/p][/quote]I have to agree with you as this could/would have happened no matter who was in power. We've had our padlocks cut open so leaving anything personal or valuable in the sheds is stupid loosehead
  • Score: 0

2:12pm Fri 21 Sep 12

waltons11 says...

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
waltons11 wrote: My neighbour moved in 2 years ago to a council house and has never cut her lawn in the back or front of her house which now resembles a small jungle. She was prioritised for a house as 2 of her children have learning difficulties and none of them ever go in the garden. She should have just stayed in her flat and let someone who really wanted a garden have the house. I thought that part of the tenancy agreement was to keep the gardens neat and tidy. There is another house 2 doors away from her also competing to see who can have the longest grass - that house has had thousands spent on it to be adapted for the disabled wife - she is not actually disabled just very fat - all her own doing!! So my question is why don't they evict these troublesome people too??
And you have possession of this woman's medical records do you? why don't you offer to help instead of b*tching away behind your curtains! pathetic... As for this story - LOL at the ranting and blaming the Labour administration, this is an officer decicision pure and simple. it does seem harsh but what can the council do if they haven't had response to their letters? why can't his letters go to the place he stays at the weekend? technically if he's no longer on the electorial role in Soton then he's not a resident, sad as that is then he technically does not have a right to have a plot here. Why is he using his shed for storage? Wedding ring in an allotment shed is pure silliness! (if it's true, we only have his word for it). Whilst i sympathise he's doing his best to keep his head above water, perhaps he should have talked to the council, kept them informed of addresses etc. the first thing they will have done is look on the electoral role. They can only act on information they have not on what this guy chose not to give them..... If the guy puts himself on the role at this friend's address that's fine, but I suspect that isn't the case. These are tough times, but the council also has to be tough. And i should look to his fellow allotment holders as the ones who dobbed him in!
Actually I know a lot more than I would divulge on this forum, certainly enough to make an informed judgement. I do still have a lot of sympathy for them both though which is why I have not reported it to the council, although I do worry about the children a lot (each time I speak to mum it is through a haze of cannabis smoke - hers not mine!!)
So no I am not a pathetic curtain twitcher, you cannot force people to accept help can you now?
[quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]waltons11[/bold] wrote: My neighbour moved in 2 years ago to a council house and has never cut her lawn in the back or front of her house which now resembles a small jungle. She was prioritised for a house as 2 of her children have learning difficulties and none of them ever go in the garden. She should have just stayed in her flat and let someone who really wanted a garden have the house. I thought that part of the tenancy agreement was to keep the gardens neat and tidy. There is another house 2 doors away from her also competing to see who can have the longest grass - that house has had thousands spent on it to be adapted for the disabled wife - she is not actually disabled just very fat - all her own doing!! So my question is why don't they evict these troublesome people too??[/p][/quote]And you have possession of this woman's medical records do you? why don't you offer to help instead of b*tching away behind your curtains! pathetic... As for this story - LOL at the ranting and blaming the Labour administration, this is an officer decicision pure and simple. it does seem harsh but what can the council do if they haven't had response to their letters? why can't his letters go to the place he stays at the weekend? technically if he's no longer on the electorial role in Soton then he's not a resident, sad as that is then he technically does not have a right to have a plot here. Why is he using his shed for storage? Wedding ring in an allotment shed is pure silliness! (if it's true, we only have his word for it). Whilst i sympathise he's doing his best to keep his head above water, perhaps he should have talked to the council, kept them informed of addresses etc. the first thing they will have done is look on the electoral role. They can only act on information they have not on what this guy chose not to give them..... If the guy puts himself on the role at this friend's address that's fine, but I suspect that isn't the case. These are tough times, but the council also has to be tough. And i should look to his fellow allotment holders as the ones who dobbed him in![/p][/quote]Actually I know a lot more than I would divulge on this forum, certainly enough to make an informed judgement. I do still have a lot of sympathy for them both though which is why I have not reported it to the council, although I do worry about the children a lot (each time I speak to mum it is through a haze of cannabis smoke - hers not mine!!) So no I am not a pathetic curtain twitcher, you cannot force people to accept help can you now? waltons11
  • 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