HartlepoolPost Forum

The meeting which will decide which site(s) are chosen takes place this Thursday (8th) in the Civic at 2pm.

http://www.hartlepool.gov.uk/egov_downloads/08.08.13_-_Finance_and_Policy_Committee_Agenda.pdf

If you are unfortunate enough to end up with one of these sites on your doorstep,
please please remember who is responisible for putting you in this position, i.e. dumping these feckers on you, at the next election. >:(

Hart Village it is then!

Ooo have they not released that small amount of info yet to the public, so hard keeping up to date with their bullsh1t these days.

Don't expect any favours from the ABs. Will they be spiteful do you think?

I've also heard talk that the site at Hart is likely to be the one chosen which is interesting because if you look at the list prepared by officers, Hart comes out bottom of the list as the least suitable. However, I've also heard that Labour see Hart as the option which will do them, as a party, the least damage.

If you load the agenda/report from the link above, you'll see just how elaborate is the assessment process and just how much work goes into it. If it turns out to be true and Hart is chosen, then it will be another example of the current Labour Group throwing all of that out of the window and ignoring standard local government practice in favour of what most suits them as a group.

We've already had two examples of them doing this:

   
• Ignoring the Chief Solicitors advice on maintaining proportionality
• Their abortive attempt to decide who should get which contracts

Ignoring the objective assessment criteria used to assess possible traveller sites in favour of a choice which does them the least damage politically will be the third

(http://www.hartlepoolpost.co.uk/images/traveller%20sites.JPG)

I managed to get to the meeting today. The two Hart sites are the ones put forward as the suggested options.

A political decision, as expected, which once again throws out of the window the objective assessment criteria used by council officers. The two areas identified as being the least suitable end up being the ones chosen - only in Hartlepool under its perverse council could this happen.

Notable to residents of Hart Ward is that none of the three Hart Ward councillors turned up at the meeting.

The next step for any Hart residents upset by this is to write and appeal to the Planning Inspector himself pointing out how the objective selection process has been completely ignored. He will not be impressed. 

Councillor Lilley, Geoff, asserted as much and claimed that various members of the Labour group had openly discussed "minimising impact" of ill feeling from residents on a bus recently. Presumably by selecting a plot that would least threaten a Labour ward.

This was denied by the members of the Labour Group who were present.

It was the first time I've been to one of these meetings due to usually being at work when they're on. It was interesting to see the reasoning and rationale behind some of the decisions to rule out certain plots.

I actually found myself agreeing with Councillor James and Stephen Akers-Belcher on some of the points they raised.

The main thing I would say was that there seemed to be no real consistency on how or why sites were ruled out. Some reasons seemed very valid (road safety, Land value etc.), others less so. The noise and wind from passing trains (and it's subsequent impact on the cold it could cause for the gypsies caravans) was raised to essentially rule out one site, and another was ruled out for, amongst other things, the potential for future archaeological digs.

I chuckled a bit at that one to be honest. I'm far from being an expert in that field but I haven't seen Tony Robinson from 'Time Team' up here lately.

Interesting meeting all in all.

Quote from: steveL on August 08, 2013, 05: PM
A political decision, as expected, which once again throws out of the window the objective assessment criteria used by council officers. The two areas identified as being the least suitable end up being the ones chosen - only in Hartlepool under its perverse council could this happen.

Notable to residents of Hart Ward is that none of the three Hart Ward councillors turned up at the meeting.

The next step for any Hart residents upset by this is to write and appeal to the Planning Inspector himself pointing out how the objective selection process has been completely ignored. He will not be impressed.

Any details there Steve? I am a Bishop Cuthbert resident and massively unimpressed especially after seeing that table of information you supplied earlier. I'm just off to bolt everything down anyway  ;)

not as such - only that the decision has been made.

I'll dig out the contact details for the Planning Inspector.

It should concern everyone that HBC appears to no longer function as a local authority should.

Can anyone remind me, who it was that was responsible for the pikey site at Hart, also various other locations around the UK?


It must have been some right k**b head of an M.P.

Any clues?

I've been reading this board for quite a while and just decided to register after seeing this debacle, I am also another unimpressed bishop cuthbert resident who would like to contact the planning officer.

If anyone has the details to hand, posting them up would be a great help

cheers

To me it sounds like the decision was made and the excuses to justify it were invented afterwards.

Perseus

I knew weeks ago, so it wasn't a secret, Stevel knew in advance too.

I must admit, I knew by default, I was stood a couple of people behind the Scabs, they were openly chatting about it.

Where was Fisher, O yes I know don't I, as far away from the meeting as it's possible to get.

SOME COUNCILLORS ARE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR!

I have only been there a couple of weeks so currently have no idea who represents that ward, I will certainly be finding out though and asking a few questions

so is this for definite that the least favourable site will get the gypsy site or does it mean that it is more than likely that hart will get it??????? for once I am lost for words.. only in Hartlepool can a place of beauty or to be honest only here can a residential area get a gypsy site........ other towns/cities put there sites away from residential areas... and without upsetting some.. I thought if you were a traveller you moved about?? so why a permanent site.. is that just the same as crimdon happy valley.. glorified caravans now made into permanent homes.. where one pays ones council taxes.. or am I way off mark!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ALSO..SAB bragging how lovely and well done labour/Manor ward on not getting the gypsy site... how can he be so happy .. does he have nothing at all to do with who does get it?? guess not many councillors live in hart, so Is it a case of oh its ok its not on my doorstep

 >:(  Why would your local councillors not turn up to such an important meeting?
You can safely assume that the views of the people they supposedly represent mean nothing to them.
If I lived in Hart or any of the surrounding areas I would be furious.....
The people who have allowed your local hospital to be taken away have now dumped a massive load of 5hit on you.
They are a total disgrace... >:( >:(

The Inspectors name is Kevin Ward BA (Hons.) MRTPI

However, in correspondence from Mr Ward it states that all correspondence on the examination must be addressed to the Programme Officer at jimriddle@tiscali.co.uk

Letter from Planning Inspector (worth a read)http://www.hartlepool.gov.uk/download/9526/inspectors_letter_regarding_suspension_of_examination (http://www.hartlepool.gov.uk/download/9526/inspectors_letter_regarding_suspension_of_examination)

Jimmy Riddle..

Is he taking the p**s?

Don't be dragging up my nickname at school...  ;)

(*Fights off confidence destroying childhood flashbacks*)

I want to know what the excuses of the three Councillors will be for not turning up.

The sites near Hart are the largest of any of the originally proposed areas.

The sites near Hart may well be worth more in terms of building land than any of the others.

http://www.hartlepool.gov.uk/downloads/file/9719/cd112-map_of_shortlisted_gypsy_and_traveller_sites-may_2013

Quote from: perseus on August 08, 2013, 08: PM
Allow me.

http://www.hartlepool.gov.uk/councillors/name

Paul Beck, Labour.

Jean Robinson, Labour and...

Keith Fisher, technically independent although widely perceived as in the pocket of Labour given his former membership of their party and the way he was easily neutered via a chair on the new committee system.

He may have got in via a campaign to 'save the hospital' (how's he doing with that by the way?) but where was he today as it was decided that a gypsy site would not only be potentially built on your ward, but potentially it could cost the Hartlepool tax payer around a quarter of a million quid to build?

It might be an idea to ask him.

Keith Fisher........ Busy picking up his 30 pieces of silver >:(

Never heard a thing from Fisher since he was elected, more the pity as I voted for him, and walked through town in the hope of keeping our hospital open.

Jean is woefully out of her depth and will do as she is told to keep her holiday fund (allowance).

Beck is just a wannabe, he wants to be liked, wants to be popular, don't think this decision will help, he stands outside of Clavering school trying to talk to people, always seems to be standing near the female police officer so he has someone to hide behind.

Hope they all lose their seats at the next election.

I was wondering how many gypsies and/or travellers were living in Britain today.

The government doesn`t have much of a clue either.

The following website (which may be of interest) suggests that there may be between 120 thousand and 300 thousand.

http://www.travellerstimes.org.uk/downloads/lifestyle_history_and_culture_24052010111520.pdf

Taking the lower figure of 120,000 in a total national population of say 60 million suggests that Hartlepool should make provision for some 180 travellers.

At the end of the day the travellers might not wish to come here.   

Quote from: rabbit on August 09, 2013, 03: PM

At the end of the day the travellers might not wish to come here.   

I hope you are right....... But there are plenty of so called travellers just up the road in Thornley, it could be that some of them like the idea of a new site and travel the short distance to come to Hartlepool

Quote from: rabbit on August 09, 2013, 03: PM
At the end of the day the travellers might not wish to come here.   

The Council have a history of 'build it and they will come' thinking.
If I read this right they do not intend to do anything more than designate the land as a gypsy site and hope that this will get them out of the hole. However someone mentioned that once a site is designated then travellers can turn up at any time and demand (and get by law) facilities. Again I heard that the Council do not intend to apply for currently available Government Grants to convert the land and this grant is time limited. This means if travellers turn up after the grant runs out the whole of the cost falls on the council.
Is that right?
If so I see a very expensive bluff that could (and most certainly will) be called.  If the vocal  'I know my rights' travellers turn up  the Councils own 'One legged BLT(sic) ethnic minority single mother with aids' Equality Department will make sure  no expense will be too much for this oppressed minority.

The potential sites are not actually for travelling gypsy & traveller families per se.
Hartlepool is required to build 6-10 plots because the last census (I believe) identified 6 families currently living in Hartlepool who identify themselves as of gypsy or traveller ethnicity. Therefor HBC must have a plan in place to house these families should they decide to go 'travelling' (2 miles to the other side of town) again. I sh*t you not!

What about the travelling gypsies that regularly turn up at B&Q then? Well, apparently they only come to Hartlepool to visit the gypsy families in the town (again I sh*t you not, this is what wlthe public were told by council officers at Miers Avenue) so HBC have allocated an extra bit of land, a driveway if you like, next to each of the 6-10 plots so that the visiting gypsies can park there.
Though the same council officer also admitted that the travelling gypsies would still use the B&Q sites regardless, so fair play to him for being honest.

So the proposed gypsy & traveller sites won't be built unless one of the 6-10 gypsy families in Hartlepool come forward and say 'I want to give up my house and live in a caravan and I want the taxpayers to pay for it'.

That isn't going happen, right?

Well i am furious...it is a disgrace that the Hart Councillors didn't even bother to turn up. An absolute disgrace. I hope they are reading the comments on the Mail article and realise what a c**k up they have made. Say goodbye to your ward!!!!! Idiots.

The residents of Clavering, Bishop Cuthbert and Hart should stick together and fight the council to the last over this. I think it is a ludicrous decision, you know what the gypsies are like - if they see something they are taking it. Everything will need to be nailed down, CCTV on, barbed wire on the fence...! We haven't worked hard to buy a relatively expensive house, in a nice area, and pay a higher council tax band, to be subjected to this.

There will be serious trouble *shakes fist*

Anyone wanna buy a caravan?

Looks like an ideal location, close to shops so they can collect their daily supplies, open countryside where they can freely harvest the fruits of the land and where their animals  can graze, unhindered.

Plus, despite being a resident of the 'plush housing estate' its a long way from my house !

Where's Hitler when you need him ?

From today's Mail.. http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/emergency-meeting-called-due-to-outrage-over-plans-to-put-gypsy-site-near-hart-village-and-bishop-cuthbert-1-5940852

But Coun Fisher said: "I knew nothing about it. I am not a member of that committee therefore they did not have to invite me.

LIES, LIES, LIES, I HAVE KNOWN WEEKS WHERE THE SITE WAS GOING TO BE, SO HOW COMES YOU DIDN'T,

"But I am also a member of the planning committee and I'm sure that this proposal will have many more stages to go through.

"I don't want to prejudice my involvement in that process."

I BET YOU DON'T FISHER!

Coun Fisher added: "Considering I am not a member of the committee that took the decision, but I have been working on the result of it all day yesterday, I won't be resigning."

YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IT WEEKS AGO, NEVER MIND YESTERDAY, YOU ARE A DISGRACE TO THE PEOPLE THAT VOTED FOR YOU AND UNWISELY HAD FAITH IN YOU!

Coun Beck and Robinson were unavailable for comment.

I BET THEY WERE, THEY'RE WAITING FOR INSTRUCTION FROM CHRISTOPHER, THEY HAVEN'T WORK OUT THEY HAVE BEEN PLAYED BY THE LABOUR MOB, THE PENNY WILL DROP WHEN NO ONE VOTES FOR THE THREE OF THEM NEXT TIME AROUND.


Yes I was shouting!

Well, it looks like Keith Fisher has just lost his seat on Hart with this comment...

QuoteCoun Fisher said: "I knew nothing about it.

(It being the Thursdays meeting).

The Mail aren't allowing comments on that article. Probably for the best in Keith's case as a comment like that to your electorate is political suicide, and the back lash will be enormous.

The comments are still flooding in here though. http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/council-picks-land-for-controversial-gypsy-site-in-hartlepool-1-5935794

Kieth was very vocal on all subjects, a regular on the Mail front page especially regarding the hospital, right up to being elected and taking his pieces of silver.

Bought and paid for Kieth, i expected better!

I've been saying it for years, finally his true colours are being shown to everyone in the town.

The'll make him Alderman of the town or some other nonsense title for his services to the Labour party..

Lets face it which  ever site was chosen there was going to be an uproar.What gets me is the SNOBS who whine about there precious house prices.Do they think they are any more proud of their house than say someone from the De Brus ward.

I think it is a natural reaction for anybody to be worried about house prices.
I think that is a human reaction and not snobbery.
I live in Seaton and I am not happy with the decision.
I would also be banging on about the value of my home if the camp was going to be near me too.

The enemy isn't the residents of Hart, Bishop Cuthbert and Clavering.

I do think Keith Fisher could have made mroe of an effort rather than saying he wasn't on the committee.
Rather than hiding behind that he could have questioned the pathetic motives behind the decision. 

Quote from: Stig of the Seaton Dump on August 10, 2013, 05: PM
I think it is a natural reaction for anybody to be worried about house prices.
I think that is a human reaction and not snobbery.
I live in Seaton and I am not happy with the decision.
I would also be banging on about the value of my home if the camp was going to be near me too.

The enemy isn't the residents of Hart, Bishop Cuthbert and Clavering.

I do think Keith Fisher could have made mroe of an effort rather than saying he wasn't on the committee.
Rather than hiding behind that he could have questioned the pathetic motives behind the decision.

Well said. As Jim Royale would say, "snobs my ar**!"  ;)

People need to stop talking about house prices and about Gypsies as if they were some kind of sub-species and concentrate on the fact that HBC completely ignored it's own assessment criteria.

There were 16 possible sites listed and the two at Hart were deemed to be the least suitable of all 16. The decision to choose the two Hart sites was made for political reasons to minimise the political impact on traditional Labour wards. Although Hart ward has two Labour Councillors and one Independent at the momemt, it is seen as a marginal ward which labour will struggle to hang on to next time around anyway.

Anyone complaining to the Planning Inspectorate needs to focus on the political nature of the decison and the increasing frequency by which HBC is ignoring standard procedures in favour of self-preservation..

This is more woe for the residents of hart,and will anyone buy them,planning for 23 houses.



http://eforms.hartlepool.gov.uk:7777/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=98121

Keith Fisher seems very vocal now!! Too little too late Fisher....anyway since Bellway mobilized i highly doubt this will go ahead...

I see in the Mail that our "the hospital will not close" MP has now become the "it won't happen here" MP

 ;D ;D ;D  I think our MP used up all of his 'trust me credit' a long time ago over the hospital

Quote from: Hartlepudlion on August 13, 2013, 12: PM
I see in the Mail that our "the hospital will not close" MP has now become the "it won't happen here" MP

The little tosspot is hilarious............. His name is all over this traveller site debacle.......
Probably starting to realise how unpopular he and his party are becoming in the town, and thinking about his future employment ;)

Fisher might not have been on the committee but he could still have attended..

I wonder if Jean Robinson will be going? According to this article published the day after she got elected to represent the people on the Hart Ward, she said she was "dumbstruck" to have won.

QuoteThe 65-year-old widow, who lives in the Clavering area and works for the NHS, said: "I didn't expect to win and I can't believe people have voted for me in this number.

"I just want to help people and I am looking forward to the challenge."

http://www.peterleestar.co.uk/news/local/women-lead-labour-election-charge-1-3354748

I don't know about "dumbstruck" but she's certainly been 'struck dumb' since this whole thing blew up.

She hasn't said a word on the issue.

Looks like we can take Wright's Mail article as the trailer for what tac they'll be taking tomorrow night - that it's all the fault of those horrible Tories - ironic given that the local Tories supported Labour as usual. These people don't accept responsibility for anything once it goes pear shaped.

I still say the fact that the two Hart sites were assessed as being the least suitable is the attack line to take here and not harp on about house prices. By all accounts, Labour had decided on their preferred sites in group meetings long before the actual Finance and Policy Meeting took place.

I suggest everyone gets there early if they want a place. Me - I'm gonna go all Tory and sell decaying tomatoes - it's called enterprise, don't you know  ;)

A copy of an e-mail letter sent to all Councillors today:

The Leader has asked me to make you aware of an open / public meeting which is to be held tomorrow at 6.30pm, in Hart Village Hall, to discuss residents concerns in relation to the Gypsy Site decision by F&P.  Please note that the Leader, Dave Stubbs and Damien Wilson will be in attendance at the meeting and should you wish to also attend, you would of course be more than welcome.

Apparently Ian Wright will be there too.

Tomatoes Steve? All chairs within 500m of the venue are to be removed before the 'sainted' (tainted?) one and his consort appear.  :-*

I've heard there will be a large police presence.
So don't be a naughty boy.  ;D

Hey it's been a bumper crop this year and demand has been unusually high  ;) I've heard there will be a ceremonial procession down front street before the meeting.

 :) The head of planning should also be there, Tom Britcliffe lives in Hart Village....hahahahahaahahahah  :)

Bet the people of Hart are so pleased nothing will happen until there is a demand for the site.That wont be long coming. Also when the 1st one turns up to make the demand where do they go until the site is built , is it just me or is there a funny smell.

THe word demand makes me think of the landfill sites.

Look how the demand for those grew and the council were powerless to control them.

I can think of other examples too but you get the jist.

I always though that our elected representatives were too clever not to be unseated by anybody but themselves.
I have every faith that thought will come true.

Hi,

I live in the village and enjoy the poor lighting, accident blackspots and lack of parking.  I appreciatte the council may be about to spend a bit of money up here as it could do with it.  Id be very surprised if the Gipsy crowd can negotiate their way accident free to the site. However if they do they wont find much, aside from the poor lighting, the lack of shops and powerful blasts of wind (see the wind turbine go near the site).   The village could use the benefits of good lighting, finally decent water pressure and improved infrastructure.  They'll also enjoy the odd business trip to Elwick I imagine as they dont like to defecate on the doorstep so to speak.  Theres a lot to do to make it ready for them so I cant wait !   

Once the White Hart and Raby Arms get packed with travellers no doubt the traffic will ease further and we will have better parking.  Less places to eat and visitors to the village but its a small price to pay.  Theres a lot of demand up here, its a pity it takes a few non taxpayers to sort it all out.

In all seriousness, its not posh at all. Expensive, quiet and barely able to cope with the people in it currently.  The decision is a joke based on nothing but desperate councillors poor jusgement. And I hope they are noticed for their lack of leadership and cowardice.

Well said, Kato!

Quote from: steveL on August 13, 2013, 08: PM
I still say the fact that the two Hart sites were assessed as being the least suitable is the attack line to take here and not harp on about house prices.

Quite right, Steve. Unfortunately house prices, insurance premiums, et al will NOT be considered as part of the planning process. Sad but true.

When building a case for objection/appeal there are only certain things that will be considered in relation to a valid objection.

·         Visual Impact

·         Privacy/overbearing

·         Daylight/sunlight

·         Noise, smell etc

·         Access/traffic

·         Health and safety

·         Ecology.

·         Crime (and the fear of)

·         Economic impact – Loss of farm land that is currently worked

·         Planning history

·         Related decisions

·         Cumulative impact – Because of the open green space around Hart sites and the secluded location there is the very real possibility of the site illegally growing around the designated zone. Even greater impact on many of the above factors and a the possibility of a costly legal dispute/clean up.

·         Personal factors – Not sure what falls under this. Phobia of gypsies/horses? ;)



Factors that will NOT be considered, however much we protest.

·         The applicant – Not really applicable since it is HBC

·         Land ownership

·         Private rights (e.g. access)

·         Restrictive covenants

·         Property value – Devaluing your house price is of no regard to them!

·         Competition

·         Loss of view

·         "Better site"

·         "Better use"

·         Change from previous scheme

·         Matters controlled under Building Regulations or other non-planning laws. E.g. Structural stability, drainage, fire precautions etc.

Pressure is also mounting on Eric Pickles as I have contacted a number of conservative council leaders, groups and MPs who are in areas also affected by these rules/quotas to come together and make a concentrated case for Pickles to keep his pre-election promise and scrap the lot.

I can't see passing trains on that list.

Lets say the committee change their minds and designate Huckleoven  Way or the  Brus ward as the new site.Will you all be up in arms then?.I very much doubt it, NIMBYism lives on in Hartlepool.People should of been against the sites full stop.Not waiting, thinking they wouldn't dare do it in their gods little acre.

I think where ever it was it was going to cause objection, it is just currently placed at the two most unsuitable sites based on the councils own criteria.  I think the fact it is a small community proves that it is an easy target, any other area would have had thousands of people protesting and they wouldnt need our pensioners to show up or our farmers to wave their pitchforks.

The funniest thing about all of this is that the council does not allow real reasons for objection to be taken into account, instead a list is created of allowed and not allowed objections.  Of course people are worried about crime, house prices, the area becoming over run, people not visitng, the 2 pubs dying off and the general quality of life. 

Lots of people walk in the village on weekend and cycle through it, come here to eat and have a drink in the countryside a little bit away from the town, walk their dogs and just have a wander around taking pictures.  Its a nice place and open for people to visit in relative safety and they do.  I cant say the same about the other areas but we all share the same concerns where ever the site is placed as they will travel  freely around the town exploring it, theres not much in Hart for them to be too occupied with.  If the village becomes a seldom visited shabby part of the town it really will be a shame, I hope that doesnt happen whatever the outcome of the travelers site debacle is.

There's an interesting document floating round, a newsletter from the Foggy Furze Councillors Christpher Akers-Belcher, Kevein Cranney and Kaylee Sirs praising themselves up for the way that they fought to have Brenda Road(around B&Q) discounted as the preferred site for the Travellers.

Under Drummond's Cabinet, the Brenda Road site had been chosen as the most suitable site largely because it was already where the Travellers went and if it could be converted to an official site with proper facilities then that would be good enough.

The three Labour Councillor's fought against the site because it was in their ward (even though the travellers had already been there for donkeys years) and this was what triggered the current selection process.
Cllr Peter Jackson infamously screamed 'not in my f***i*g backgarden' at the meeting when he first realised that his own Wiltshire Way was on the original list.

Two glaring examples of Not In My Back Yard . . . but OK in Yours.

"The funniest thing about all of this is that the council does not allow real reasons for objection to be taken into account, instead a list is created of allowed and not allowed objections."

To be fair to the council, it's not them who set the criteria for valid objections. It's a combination of the Planning Inspectorate/Government who do this. It's not often appreciated that the scope for our local Planning Committee to reject planning applications is extremely limited because they are bound by criteria that come from elsewhere. If they do object, knowing that they are going against laid down criteria, then they leavee themselves wide open to losing any appeal complete with the hefty bill that would come with it.

Having said that, it is this same insistence on observing set criteria which makes any appeal over Traveller sites in Hart so win-able because following the selection criteria is clearly what the Finance and Policy Committee has NOT done.

Just came away from the Hart Ward meeting, AB was shouted down to resign, Hart Ward was choosen for the Gypsy site most probably for the reason stated on this site namely less fall out for the Labour, especially when one person present mentioned Manor Ward election and said he had seen the Labour candidates leaflet which stated we have worked very hard to make sure the Gypsy site did not come to the Manor Ward, It`s a blatant stitch up for the Hart Ward and people vote for these people time after time. 

Quote from: beanzontoast on August 14, 2013, 09: PM
Just came away from the Hart Ward meeting, AB was shouted down to resign

Was that the 'they all love me' SCAB?

Quote from: mk1 on August 14, 2013, 09: PM

Quote from: beanzontoast on August 14, 2013, 09: PM
Just came away from the Hart Ward meeting, AB was shouted down to resign

Was that the 'they all love me' SCAB?

I think it was, "They all Love Ste as The Ceremonial Mayor" 

What a bunch of shysters, they haven`t got the brains they were born with, they have tried to make sure they hang on to the Manor & in doing so have proved themselves to be duplicitous over the Gypsy Sites in Hart.

More & more people are starting to see this lot for what they are & this little scam will come back to haunt them & not just in the Hart Ward come next May.

I know i've been critical over Fisher's role in this so far but he showed his true colours tonight, him and Beck were both kept in the dark about the meeting to decide the location of the gypsy site but full marks to them for the way they carried themselves tonight.

I saw Jean Robinson lurking at the back with Simmonds and the little fat bloke (Carl), she should be ashamed that she never got up to say anything.

Wright and CAB were roundly booed by the crowd and they deserved it, if there was a general election tomorrow Fisher would walk it in this part of town.

Fisher might have shown his true colours but not as you may imagine, he was not at the first discussion at the Hart village hall, said he did not know about it, also the other Labour councillor, also missed it, you guessed it did not know about it either, seems a little convienient dont you think, how deep doe`s the rabbit hole go.

Quote from: clavering codhead on August 14, 2013, 09: PM
I know i've been critical over Fisher's role in this so far but he showed his true colours tonight, him and Beck were both kept in the dark about the meeting to decide the location of the gypsy site but full marks to them for the way they carried themselves tonight.

I saw Jean Robinson lurking at the back with Simmonds and the little fat bloke (Carl), she should be ashamed that she never got up to say anything.

Wright and CAB were roundly booed by the crowd and they deserved it, if there was a general election tomorrow Fisher would walk it in this part of town.

Exactly which meeting were they kept in the Dark About to decide the Gypsy Sites ? the meeting that took place to decide the Gypsy Sites took place in the council chamber & was attended by myself & quite a few more members of the public, plus a boat load of Councillors, the CEO & Planning Officers ............. How come we weren`t kept in the Dark ?

If the Dear Leader had been looking out for his members he would have made sure they were aware of the meeting, if he didn't and I was a member of the Labour group I'd want to know why not.

Fisher played a blinder, but I still find it hard to believe he was not aware of this meeting, he certainly should have been it directly effected his Ward.  To offer to donate his allowance was a noble act but will only effect one or two months money as the process should be over and done with once the Planning Inspector has made his decision.

Fisher loves to play to an audience and does well at it but I'm afraid that there's no excuse for either himself or Beck to play the 'I know nothing' card. If Fisher and Beck knew nothing about the meeting of the Finance and Policy Committee that would decide on the Traveller's site, then they were the only two councillors in the Civic that didn't.

This whole issue had gone on for months. It was always going to be controversial and Hart Ward voters were entirley dependent on their three councillors keeping on top of the subject in case their own ward was ever put forward as a possible site.

It was - weeks ago

.... . . and once two sites in Hart Ward had been identified it was down to the three councillors to track the issue and make sure it didn't slip by them. The agenda for the finance and policy meeting was published a full week in advance and the fact that the meeting was to take place was trailed well in advance both on this site and in the Hartlepool Mail.

In fact, so well was the meeting trailed - and this is the killer - that the meeting, when it did take place, was well attended by members of the public. So how can it be that a significant number of the public knew all about the meeting but  the three Civic 'insider's as Councillors did not?

It really doesn't hold water, does it?

Fisher's final excuse was that as a member of the Planning Committee, he didn't want to prejudice his 'impartial' position as a planning committee member by turning up or speaking at the Finance and Policy Meeting.

Again, this falls down when it was made clear that there is to be no Planning Committee involvement and that any appeals must be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate direct who will solely make the decision on any appeal.

So sorry, Keith. You made a good attempt at a juggling act tonight but one by one, the balls hit the deck.

The allowance donation was a recovery stunt offered because he quietly knew fine well that he'd dropped a major bollock.

I was there too. Sat right at the front row. Whatever the motivations of the people present at the meeting in terms of the residents, it was brilliant to see so many people actually get of their backsides and show their frustration at a political issue.

There must have been 2 or 3 hundred people crammed into the meeting and as many again outside who couldn't get in.

I felt a bit sorry for Damien Wilson in that for a long while people seemed to think it was HIS decision. Whilst that was going on Councillor Akers-Belcher was basically happy to just keep quiet and let him take the flack.

Ultimately, people realised that CAB had basically ignored his officers main recommendations and there were multiple calls for him to resign.

The most interesting thing I noticed was that a lot of things that WERE absolutely definitely 100% said in last weeks committee meeting, (I know because I was there along with FredC) were denied having ever been said by various members of the 'top table'.

I had a very public stand up confrontation with Councillor Akers-Belcher regarding comments he made in last weeks meeting about wind from trains. He denied saying it initially. A resident then pointed out that it was apparently referred to in the councils own minutes from the meeting.

Later it was denied that the possibility of the site expanding was discussed in last weeks meeting. Again, initially it was denied by various people on the top table as having ever been discussed in the meeting.

Again, a resident pointed out it was in their own minutes.

I genuinely despair.

I had the same thought, though a less sympathetic one, about Damien Wilson who spent far too much time acting as a human shield for C. Akers-Belcher. He is, after all, a council officer and not one of the the decision making councillors.

Less sympathetic because he will know that he will have scored massive points for taking the flak away from C. Akers-Belcher during the meeting. Wilson, remember, had put himself forward as Director and with Councillor Stubbs(Labour) already well passed his sell-by date, Damien will have his eye firmly focused on the main chance.

Most notable of all was Councillor Stubbs(Labour) himself who could easily have replaced himself with a Swiss Cheese Plant and probably have improved the quality of his contribution at the same time.

There will be no Traveller sites in Hart. The way that Labour have ignored the criteria is so blatant and so obviously political that the Planning Inspectorate will see through it very quickly. However, to be sure, what does need to happen next is that people need to write those e-mails to the Programme Officer within the next 3 days - yes 3 days is all the time left as August 18th is the cut-off point.

Forget any talk of house prices - they'll be ignored - and concentrate on the 16 site short-list and how the most suitable sites on that list were ignored in favour of the least suitable sites.


Just as a reminder:

The Inspectors name is Kevin Ward BA (Hons.) MRTPI

However, in correspondence from Mr Ward it states that all correspondence on the examination must be addressed to the Programme Officer at jimriddle@tiscali.co.uk (jimriddle@tiscali.co.uk)

Letter from Planning Inspector (worth a read)http://www.hartlepool.gov.uk/download/9526/inspectors_letter_regarding_suspension_of_examination (http://www.hartlepool.gov.uk/download/9526/inspectors_letter_regarding_suspension_of_examination)

So for the people who attended the meeting 2 simple questions

1. Do you think the traveller site will still be built in hart

2. If not where do you think it will go?

Quote from: steveL on August 14, 2013, 05: PM
There's an interesting document floating round, a newsletter from the Foggy Furze Councillors Christpher Akers-Belcher, Kevein Cranney and Kaylee Sirs praising themselves up for the way that they fought to have Brenda Road(around B&Q) discounted as the preferred site for the Travellers.

Under Drummond's Cabinet, the Brenda Road site had been chosen as the most suitable site largely because it was already where the Travellers went and if it could be converted to an official site with proper facilities then that would be good enough.

The three Labour Councillor's fought against the site because it was in their ward (even though the travellers had already been there for donkeys years) and this was what triggered the current selection process.
Cllr Peter Jackson infamously screamed 'not in my f***i*g backgarden' at the meeting when he first realised that his own Wiltshire Way was on the original list.

Two glaring examples of Not In My Back Yard . . . but OK in Yours.

Sorry Steve but that is a load of tosh.. travellers may well have sited there in the past, but your comment implies that nobody in that area is bothered that they were there. That is simply not true.. peoples lives have been blighted for years because of the travelling community.. whats most interesting about this whole episode is the fact that mayor drummond and his cabinet said that only 5 sites where available across town.. funny how all these extra sites were found after the people fought back.. when questioned by residents the councillors worked with the residents association and even residents from the Seaton ward to prevent this becoming a reality.. you may not like it but councillors Cranney, Sirs & CAB are very well thought of in their ward and kudos to them for putting those who elected them first. They got three cheers from residents for putting up the good fight and winning the battle against the mayor and his cabinet

I wouldnt like to think you were my ward councillor if you think the opinions and feelings of constituents dont match yours.. fortunately we have councillors who do work hard for the area and long may it continue

In reply to ARC89 quote; ' funny how all these extra sites were found after the people fought back'.

It was also funny how all these extra site were found once Drummond's administration was a dead duck.  The decision on the short listed sites should have been taken by an impartial party (the Planning Inspector) and not in effect by one political party with too many political vested interests.

The people of Hart know they've been stitched up, you know it, I know it and CAB knows it.  Shame he can't be man enough to just admit it.

Political Leadership for the good of the town? my a**e.

Quote from: Lord Elpus on August 15, 2013, 08: AM

The people of Hart know they've been stitched up, you know it, I know it and CAB knows it.  Shame he can't be man enough to just admit it.

Political Leadership for the good of the town? my a**e.

I'm not going to get drawn into the argument about more suitable sites as I don't agree with any of them but I will say that you can't protest about Hart being 'stitched up' and that you agree entirely with the planning officers when you yourself voted against the planning officers recommendations and FOR Hart.

Quote from: steveL on August 14, 2013, 10: PM
Fisher loves to play to an audience and does well at it but I'm afraid that there's no excuse for either himself or Beck to play the 'I know nothing' card. If Fisher and Beck knew nothing about the meeting of the Finance and Policy Committee that would decide on the Traveller's site, then they were the only two councillors in the Civic that didn't.

This whole issue had gone on for months. It was always going to be controversial and Hart Ward voters were entirley dependent on their three councillors keeping on top of the subject in case their own ward was ever put forward as a possible site.

It was - weeks ago

.... . . and once two sites in Hart Ward had been identified it was down to the three councillors to track the issue and make sure it didn't slip by them. The agenda for the finance and policy meeting was published a full week in advance and the fact that the meeting was to take place was trailed well in advance both on this site and in the Hartlepool Mail.

In fact, so well was the meeting trailed - and this is the killer - that the meeting, when it did take place, was well attended by members of the public. So how can it be that a significant number of the public knew all about the meeting but  the three Civic 'insider's as Councillors did not?

It really doesn't hold water, does it?

Fisher's final excuse was that as a member of the Planning Committee, he didn't want to prejudice his 'impartial' position as a planning committee member by turning up or speaking at the Finance and Policy Meeting.

Again, this falls down when it was made clear that there is to be no Planning Committee involvement and that any appeals must be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate direct who will solely make the decision on any appeal.

So sorry, Keith. You made a good attempt at a juggling act tonight but one by one, the balls hit the deck.

The allowance donation was a recovery stunt offered because he quietly knew fine well that he'd dropped a major bollock.

I logged in to make my thoughts known on what went on last night but Steve has summed them up perfectly with the above.

One thing that has gone unreported is Iain Wright completely losing his temper and screaming at members of the public who had, quite rightly, pointed out that they knew these rules came about because of him and they demand he stands up and moves to have them overturned. Needless to say, he refused to give that commitment and stated that he's "make representations but you should write to the planning inspector".

I agree that the Ward Cllrs got off very lightly. How could they not know about the meeting!

Fisher did talk the talk but I felt he had some loud assistance several times  from the same members in the room, ringers?

The MP and leader got a grilling but both were adamant that they were not going to support the Hart residents in their appeal. I guess that it was a political decision. Labour stand every chance of losing the marginal seat so why risk a safe one.

Simmons and Richardson showed up later on in the meeting. From the look on their faces they were not happy. So come on you two and show the rest of the Labour sheep how to depose 'our dear leader' and consort.

Quote from: SRMoore on August 15, 2013, 09: AM

Quote from: steveL on August 14, 2013, 10: PM
Fisher loves to play to an audience and does well at it but I'm afraid that there's no excuse for either himself or Beck to play the 'I know nothing' card. If Fisher and Beck knew nothing about the meeting of the Finance and Policy Committee that would decide on the Traveller's site, then they were the only two councillors in the Civic that didn't.

This whole issue had gone on for months. It was always going to be controversial and Hart Ward voters were entirley dependent on their three councillors keeping on top of the subject in case their own ward was ever put forward as a possible site.

It was - weeks ago

.... . . and once two sites in Hart Ward had been identified it was down to the three councillors to track the issue and make sure it didn't slip by them. The agenda for the finance and policy meeting was published a full week in advance and the fact that the meeting was to take place was trailed well in advance both on this site and in the Hartlepool Mail.

In fact, so well was the meeting trailed - and this is the killer - that the meeting, when it did take place, was well attended by members of the public. So how can it be that a significant number of the public knew all about the meeting but  the three Civic 'insider's as Councillors did not?

It really doesn't hold water, does it?

Fisher's final excuse was that as a member of the Planning Committee, he didn't want to prejudice his 'impartial' position as a planning committee member by turning up or speaking at the Finance and Policy Meeting.

Again, this falls down when it was made clear that there is to be no Planning Committee involvement and that any appeals must be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate direct who will solely make the decision on any appeal.

So sorry, Keith. You made a good attempt at a juggling act tonight but one by one, the balls hit the deck.

The allowance donation was a recovery stunt offered because he quietly knew fine well that he'd dropped a major bollock.

I logged in to make my thoughts known on what went on last night but Steve has summed them up perfectly with the above.

One thing that has gone unreported is Iain Wright completely losing his temper and screaming at members of the public who had, quite rightly, pointed out that they knew these rules came about because of him and they demand he stands up and moves to have them overturned. Needless to say, he refused to give that commitment and stated that he's "make representations but you should write to the planning inspector".

He was standing up.... I would hate for him to be 6`4" he would be a real handful... a simple case of "Small Mans Syndrome"....... funny how members of "The Mob" can lose the Plot & scream & abuse members of the public, but go off it when members of the public give them stick in return.

So Fisher, Beck & Robinson were not aware of the committee meeting?
Are they all 'out of the loop' with regard to politics in the Civic?
Don't councillors talk to each other?
Aren't documents circulated prior to meetings?

Stitched up? Too bloody true, and by the whole rotten establishment, not just Fisher & Co.  :(
To paraphrase a hackneyed saying, "They were all in it together!!"

As for Wright, what did he say/shout?  :P
It shows he KNOWS he's on his way out.
I'm told he tried to blame the Govt. for this situation when it was HIS communist ideological Govt. that introduced the law, and HE was the minister smoothing its pathway.  >:(

I'm told the clown with the bleach blond hair looked like a bug eyed cockatiel.
And he's supposed to represent a 'stately' office.  :-[
What a complete joke.
Hope there are pictures in the Mail. :)

It's appeared...

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/hundreds-turn-out-at-highly-charged-meeting-over-hart-gypsy-site-1-5953681

I cant understand why people are knocking our MP. I think hes come on very well since he played the little one of the Driscoll brothers on Only Fools And Horses  but he still wears the same coat

SteveL, I read some of that letter that you referred to above. (the one that the Inspector Kevin Ward had written in February this year.

In one sentence in the letter, dismissing the suitability of the site at Brenda Road, the inspector wrote:

"I consider that the site would not provide a suitable living environment given the proximity of general industrial uses, a retail park and busy roads."

Have you seen the new houses being built between the railway and Mainsforth Terrace?

Using the above remarks, this site would also not be a suitable environment for a traveller`s camp either, but somehow someone has decided that it is o.k. for standard housing in Hartlepool.

I find it staggering that the wishes of a whole town and surounding communities can be ignored in favour of one non taxpaying traveller.

Not only will I be writing a letter to oppose the development at Hart, I will also be writing one to ask why the council leaders are so out of touch with their staff.  Now even J Riddle has passed on the letters to Tom Britcliffe, a town planner, who lives in Hart Village.

At least he may take ownership of the issue and fight the proposed sites for us.

@rabbit The contradiction doesn't surprise me; there's some very unreal aspects to the whole approach to this subject.
For example, the Traveller Site, as it's become known, is aimed at Travellers who don't - well - travel. People who want to take up permanent residence in the town but in caravans rather than houses. Travellers that do travel will presumably continue to park up where they always have leaving us not much further forward and many would say, having taken a large step backwards.

There seems to have been some sort of survey carried out amongst Romas who are currently living in houses in town asking them if they would prefer to have the choice of living in caravans. If I remember rightly, six such families currently living in houses said that they would. The was described as a 'need'.

Asked if a site was available now, how many would want to move into a caravan immediately, only 1 family said that they would. This was described as trhe 'demand'.

There was much play on these two words 'need' and 'demand' last night which confused everyone.

Quote from: SRMoore on August 15, 2013, 09: AM

Quote from: Lord Elpus on August 15, 2013, 08: AM

The people of Hart know they've been stitched up, you know it, I know it and CAB knows it.  Shame he can't be man enough to just admit it.

Political Leadership for the good of the town? my a**e.

I'm not going to get drawn into the argument about more suitable sites as I don't agree with any of them but I will say that you can't protest about Hart being 'stitched up' and that you agree entirely with the planning officers when you yourself voted against the planning officers recommendations and FOR Hart.

At the end of the meeting CAB asked if we all agreed that the two sites in Hart should go forward to the Planning Inspector. My clear recollection was that I and Cllr A Lilley objected, this was not recorded in the minutes. 
The minutes read;

In summary, it was noted that Site 11 – Ref 462: Hart Smallholdings East
and Site 13 – Ref 465: Hart Smallholdings West were the two sites to
remain on the list for further consideration as a proposed gypsy and
traveller site.
One Member did comment that the soil in this area was extra rich soil and
was very unhappy to see this site included, however no alternative sites
were proposed for consideration at this point.
A discussion ensued on the two sites at Hart Smallholdings and it was
noted that the access to the West site would have least impact on local
traffic.

First post on this site but I have been an observer for over a year.
Please look at the first posts here from August 7th informing of the council sub committee meeting on the 8th August. So anyone reading this site knew there was a meeting
I was talking to all and sundry in The White Hart on Wednesday evening about the meeting. Yet our councillors tell us they knew nothing about it. Disingenuous or what??

Quote from: Lord Elpus on August 15, 2013, 11: AM

Quote from: SRMoore on August 15, 2013, 09: AM

Quote from: Lord Elpus on August 15, 2013, 08: AM

The people of Hart know they've been stitched up, you know it, I know it and CAB knows it.  Shame he can't be man enough to just admit it.

Political Leadership for the good of the town? my a**e.

I'm not going to get drawn into the argument about more suitable sites as I don't agree with any of them but I will say that you can't protest about Hart being 'stitched up' and that you agree entirely with the planning officers when you yourself voted against the planning officers recommendations and FOR Hart.

At the end of the meeting CAB asked if we all agreed that the two sites in Hart should go forward to the Planning Inspector. My clear recollection was that I and Cllr A Lilley objected, this was not recorded in the minutes. 
The minutes read;

In summary, it was noted that Site 11 – Ref 462: Hart Smallholdings East
and Site 13 – Ref 465: Hart Smallholdings West were the two sites to
remain on the list for further consideration as a proposed gypsy and
traveller site.
One Member did comment that the soil in this area was extra rich soil and
was very unhappy to see this site included, however no alternative sites
were proposed for consideration at this point.
A discussion ensued on the two sites at Hart Smallholdings and it was
noted that the access to the West site would have least impact on local
traffic.

I was sure I had heard your objection, but I`m getting on a bit & wondered if i had imagined it.... lmao

Yet another reason for HBC to Install a recording system........ The one used by Cllr Thompson worked like a charm, & it gave us all a chance to Pee our Pants a second time listening to "The Dear Leader" & Carls Blustering.

Well I have just sent my letter of objection and based it around this document, its the assessment of all the sites originally mentioned and clearly shows the Hart sites as least sustainable

http://www.hartlepool.gov.uk/downloads/file/9716/cd109-gypsy_and_traveller_site_assessment-sustainability_appraisal-may_2013

I really don't see how they can get the Hart site through planning when there is a document like that?

I am not convinced that the Inspector will turn down the Hart decision.

On what basis?-that there were too many objections? Remember the hospital?

One reason he could use is that due process was not followed. Embarrasing for the council though.

If the current Hart councillors feel that they "were left out of the loop", they should resign as councillors.

A by-election would be the result.

If the inspector then turns down the choice for Hart, it would be seen as a victory for the current councillors and they could be re-elected.

If the inspector approves the choice for Hart, then step forward PHF!

Quote from: Lord Elpus on August 15, 2013, 11: AM

Quote from: SRMoore on August 15, 2013, 09: AM

Quote from: Lord Elpus on August 15, 2013, 08: AM

The people of Hart know they've been stitched up, you know it, I know it and CAB knows it.  Shame he can't be man enough to just admit it.

Political Leadership for the good of the town? my a**e.

I'm not going to get drawn into the argument about more suitable sites as I don't agree with any of them but I will say that you can't protest about Hart being 'stitched up' and that you agree entirely with the planning officers when you yourself voted against the planning officers recommendations and FOR Hart.

At the end of the meeting CAB asked if we all agreed that the two sites in Hart should go forward to the Planning Inspector. My clear recollection was that I and Cllr A Lilley objected, this was not recorded in the minutes. 
The minutes read;

In summary, it was noted that Site 11 – Ref 462: Hart Smallholdings East
and Site 13 – Ref 465: Hart Smallholdings West were the two sites to
remain on the list for further consideration as a proposed gypsy and
traveller site.
One Member did comment that the soil in this area was extra rich soil and
was very unhappy to see this site included, however no alternative sites
were proposed for consideration at this point.
A discussion ensued on the two sites at Hart Smallholdings and it was
noted that the access to the West site would have least impact on local
traffic.

Okay, perhaps as a point of clarification you can advise us on whether or not there was a vote taken and if so, how did members vote?

The council officer kept on saying that as yet there is no demand for a site, whats to stop someone from putting their house for sale, pocketing the profit then buying a £5000 caravan and living in lovely Hart Village with only council tax and water rates to pay?

I might do it myself, save me a fortune in mortgage payments and I'll have enough left over for a nice Range Rover to carry my pegs and lucky heather around in.

In the mean time I'll send my letter of objection and hope the planning officer has a bit more common sense than the council.

Quote from: rabbit on August 15, 2013, 02: PM
I am not convinced that the Inspector will turn down the Hart decision.

On what basis?

on the basis he lives in hart would good guess  ;D

If the Inspector does turn the preferred choice (Hart smallholdings west) down, then the council will have to resubmit with their back-up choice.

Which is Hart smallholdings East. ;D

They couldn`t run a p**s up in a brewery.

Quote from: pensionater on August 14, 2013, 04: PM
Lets say the committee change their minds and designate Huckleoven  Way or the  Brus ward as the new site.Will you all be up in arms then?.I very much doubt it, NIMBYism lives on in Hartlepool.People should of been against the sites full stop.Not waiting, thinking they wouldn't dare do it in their gods little acre.

I would be up in arms if the site was anywhere in town but see pensionater, if i'm honest, after the pure animosity offered by some residents of the other wards in the wake of the decision, laughing, making jokes, name calling and having a pop at the so called 'posh people' and seemingly relishing the fact that our homes are likely to be broken into, i think i would prefer to just turn round and tell them to go whistle for my support!!!!!!! In the interest of the good of the town i would however stand against it. Begrudgingly.

Always treat people how you would want to be treated because you just never know when you might need them...  ;)

I have known a lot of gypsies over the years ,the older ones were not so bad but this knew breed ,they don't want to go out looking for work like the older ones ,they just sit and make thousands by selling drugs and most of them carry weapons they have no morels what so ever ,and we have a big enough problem with drugs in this town go in any pub in Hartlepool and the line to the toilet you think they were giving pork pies away it is getting worse by the day .Girls are as bad as the men you would get a shock ,its big bucks and the police do sod all .ALL THIS TOWN HAS IS THE SCABS AND THERE MATES A DRUG EPIDEMIC AND A BENT POLICE FORCE SO THANKS FOR PUTTING HARTLEPOOL ON THE MAP . IT IS GETTING TO BE A REAL S--- HOLE

Admin: This seems a good time to remind everyone that the views expressed on this forum are not necessarily the views of the Hartlepool Post website or the people who run it

Well Lord Elphus you know what to do! Don't accept the minutes of the meeting until they record the TRUE details of the meeting. Too many minutes of Council Meetings don't record the details as remembered and yet ALL you Cllrs blithely sign them off.

It is about time that ALL meetings are recorded so that the minutes can be checked for a true recording. If the Council won't do it, then everybody take their own video/audio recordings.

Remind you of anyone??

I can't help but think that the culprits for this are US.

I say US meaning the electorate, the sheep who have allowed a version of the Labour Party to continue in power with traditional values replaced by power crazy individuals who will tread on anyone in their way.

The Hart ward councillors are worse than useless, Fisher is a liar and now think he can pull the wool over people's eyes. Beck has proved by his inaction over MR & over this he is a coward singing to the leaders tune, and I'm sure there is a third puppet but clearly she isn't yet deemed capable of public speech so they're keeping her on a leash.

Wright isn't fit to represent the town at any level and should be forced to resign, he is the most false, self serving and odious person I've ever had the misfortune to share a room with.

I'm grateful to those on this site who have posted details of the appeals process its just sad that as residents and council tax payers we now know that very few of our elected representatives are to be trusted. It's scary how few votes must have won the two Hart ward Labour seats if the idiots were prepared to give them away so cheaply.

Quote from SAB "All areas of Hartlepool should be equal and Gypsy & Traveller community should be afforded the same level of services as everyone else. We agreed an 8 pitch site which will only ever be built should there be demand for one."
how can he say this then celebrate with his partner on winning the fact they not getting the gypsy site on the Manor Ward... and also fight its not going on his own ward.... pot kettle etc........ only takes one gypsy to say oh why not old chum think I will come and stay and their idea of it not happening is history .... as for MR WRIGHT or MR WRONG as he should be called.. where is he does anyone know what he does for this town??

This is all reminiscent of when, two or three years ago, Labour tried to close a couple of primary schools allegedly because of falling roll numbers. People feel as strongly about their local schools as they do about having a traveller's site on their door step. When the list of possible closures was published, all assessed against objective criteria of course, the public erupted and there were meetings all over the place.

Eventually, Labour chose their preference and guess which two they chose – Hart and Elwick which just happened to be two of the most successful and best performing schools in town. Elwick and Hart had an Independent Councillor at the time so no damage there to labour councillors.

HTH was in the thick of the campaign at the time and eventually it was decided that the statistics used that concluded pupil numbers were falling had been flawed and the whole thing was abandoned. 

Likewise now, the Hart Ward currently has two Labour Councillors who only managed to win their seats because of the collapse of the Lib-Dems. The Hart Ward is still regarded as a marginal by Labour which they half expect to lose at any time whether or not Hart ends up with the Travellers Site.

In the early stages of the Travellers issue, Labour tried hard to get non-Labour wards added to the original list even though council officers had concluded that there were no suitable sites in those wards. They failed to do so in Fens and Rossmere and Seaton but did manage to sneak in Tory Briarfields when George Morris fell asleep at the meeting.

It's all about protecting Labour seats, especially those of the Labour elite - not so much the sheep, who are always vulnerable to being offered up as sacrifices.

I was in M&S this after and I spotted the Mail's front page picture. I pointed out to my g/daughter that I was there. With a little bit of imagination I might have spotted myself. A lady next to me joined in and asked if our MP was there? I said yes and before I could say anything else she launched into an attack against our MP " what a waste of time that odious little man is" etc. so yet another thinker is against our MP. I can't help hoping that the thinkers will outnumber the non-thinkers and vote him out 2015. Am hoping for too much?

........ everything depends on having a credible alternative

Quote from: Hartlepudlion on August 15, 2013, 07: PM
Am hoping for too much?

Not at all....... Anything is possible....

I cant believe for a minute that anyone is impressed with wee mans performance as (so called) MP....

As Steve says all we need is a credible alternative.

Reading the Post's front page I would like to add:

Stress the fact that farming is an industry. At certain times of the year it is a 24hrs operation with a high level of noise as well as changing light patterns from the tractors etc which will not be conducive to sleep, far worse than a noisy train. At harvest time there will be dust that can aggravate breathing difficulties such that, in extreme cases, can result in death. Silage spreading has a rather unpleasant side effect of producing rather noxious smells worse than anything the various landfills produce. And then there is the occasional fire caused by striking flint. Farm machinery and vehicles are now bigger and noisier than anything that exists on the industrial estates. Conclusion: farming is a noisy and dangerous industry and, by the criteria mentioned by Akers-Belcher, the two Hart sites should never have been included in the Council, Akers-Belcher's, deliberations. A very flawed decision that should be thrown out.
As mentioned at the meeting, farming is now rated as the most dangerous industry in the UK to work in.
Ignorance is bliss according to some but with Akers-Belcher it is just ignorance.

Can anyone actually physically see/view the video of last nights meeting the mail have added to their site? They've uploaded it and are promoting it as a video but I cant see a link or a 'play button'?

@Hartlepudlian mmm....I think I'll pinch that if you don't mind and add it to the main page

Hart Smallholdings West is also in close proximity to Hart Bog, home to a rare species of beetle in the UK and 3 rare types of waterboatman and is a site of scientific interest.  I wonder how many rights the beetle has over travellers ? Surely the construction of the site would affect this preserved area ?

Well done Kato. Just the type of edge needed. Find out which preservation society is involved and you've cracked it. The Council may have a responsible officer but don't ask a Labour politician for help.

Quote from: Kato on August 15, 2013, 09: PM
Hart Smallholdings West is also in close proximity to Hart Bog, home to a rare species of beetle in the UK and 3 rare types of waterboatman and is a site of scientific interest.  I wonder how many rights the beetle has over travellers ? Surely the construction of the site would affect this preserved area ?

The presence of Great Crested Newts was taken into account for at least 2 of the other proposed Shanty Towns...i mean Traveller Camps. They are a protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

Kato, linked to what you said, it's worth knowing that one other reason cited by the labour group in the meeting which decided this, was offered up by Labour councillor Marjorie James. She raised the issue of the disruption to potential future archaeological digs in one of the sites. (I can't remember which one because they were largely making it up as they went along but it was a Labour ward).

I love my town, and I don't mean to be flippant but I don't remember Tony Robinson and the fellas from 'Time Team' digging around Hartlepool too often.

You might want to make the people of the areas potentially affected aware of that little gem.

That site is near me. If you wish to defend against the Hart sites feel free, but do not attempt to get them to dump it on my doorstep.

Incidentally, the Council's own documentation states that an Archeological Survey would be required before that site in question could be developed, so they were only bringing up information already available and not making it up, as you seem to be suggesting.

http://www.english-nature.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1000052.pdf

It also something of interest that some scholar believe Hart Smallholdings West is the home of the great mead hall from the Beowulf legend too...

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/beowulf-local-legend-or-monster-myth-1-1022912

Clearly a site of historical / archeological interest ?

Unbeliever, I, like pretty much everyone else, don't think ANY of the sites they've outlined are appropriate. I'm just highlighting the spurious ad hoc way they went about ruling the safe labour wards out.

Wind from trains, buried archaeological treasures, noise from trains, high land value blah blah blah.

As Kato implies from that most recent post, there was little or no consistency in the reasons offered for ruling sites out. 

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 15, 2013, 09: PM
That site is near me. If you wish to defend against the Hart sites feel free, but do not attempt to get them to dump it on my doorstep.

I don`t think DRiddle`s comment was ment in that context... it was akin to the spurious reasons given by "The Deary Me Leader" ie. Wind in the Caravans & proximity to Rail Lines..

I wonder if the Egomaniac has driven along Mainsforth Tce lately, they are building Houses within a few metres of the railway line on the same level (Not on The Embankment)

QuoteIncidentally, the Council's own documentation states that an Archeological Survey would be required before that site in question could be developed, so they were only bringing up information already available and not making it up, as you seem to be suggesting.]

With respect unbeliever, I think you're being a little bit naïve. Allegedly the very same councils documentation recently had a piece of grassland on Owton Manor re-classified as a 'village green'. Thus helping that be ruled out of the list of sites. 

Were you at the meeting in which this decision was made? Did you see and hear it first hand?

Quote from: DRiddle on August 15, 2013, 09: PM
[quoteIncidentally, the Council's own documentation states that an Archeological Survey would be required before that site in question could be developed, so they were only bringing up information already available and not making it up, as you seem to be suggesting.]

With respect unbeliever, I think you're being a little bit naïve. Allegedly the very same councils documentation recently had a piece of grassland on Owton Manor re-classified as a 'village green'. Thus helping that be ruled out of the list of sites. 

Were you at the meeting in which this decision was made? Did you see and hear it first hand?
[/quote]

If your trying to get my newly classified Village Green taken off the list..... don`t bother.....where else would i be able to Graze My Herd of Pedigree Labour Councillors

 :)

The bizarre thing is, nobody was really surprised that Labour seemingly did this (fight to keep it out of their own wards and ignore the process). It's actually 'sensible politics' in terms of them protecting their wards and appeasing their votes. (Although obviously morally wrong).

They've just gone about in such a blatantly obvious way, lacking even any modicum of subtlety it's blown up in their faces.

Yeah they were about as subtle as a 5 Gallon Bucket of Sh*te, but no one is under any illusions about how sneaky & underhand "The Mob" have become under the leadership of "The Dear Leader"

I OWN MY HOME ON THE MANOR AND I DONT WANT IT ON MY STEP EITHER ITS BAD ENOUGH WITH THE LITTLE SCALLY WAGS THEY GIVE HOUSES TO . THESE PEOLPLE WHO GET HOUSES NOW YOU DONT SEE THEM CLEAN WINDOWS SWEEP FRONTS ITS JUST NETS UP LETS PARTY (SO I DONT THINK WE NEED THEM DO YOU.)WHEN THEY PASS YOU OR USE YOUR GARDEN AS A LOO FORBID IF YOU TRY AND SAY SOMETHING.CAR SMASHED WINDOWS OUT SO GOD HELP US IF WE GET TRAVELLERS

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/video-tensions-rise-during-hart-gypsy-debate-1-5957668

the mail have fixed the video link.

I actually think that's a good point raised regarding the wider origin of the basis for Iain Wright bringing this in back in 2008. Although we could talk all day and not really come up with anything that will even come close to having the EU legislation turned around anytime soon.

Personally, any energy I expend on this will be focussed on the way the local Labour group ignored their own officers' recommendations.

Although it is a fair point raised in terms of a wider debate.

Interesting development to try and get the whole matter referred to the full council. It will certainly be interesting to know who supports the move and who doesn't.
http://www.hartlepoolpost.co.uk (http://www.hartlepoolpost.co.uk)

I thought Tracy Walker did a decent report of this in The Mail and the video was interesting. So glad Menswear didn't cover it; his reports are usually so bland and 'on message' we usually end up having to tell people what actually happened.

Quote from: steveL on August 16, 2013, 02: PM
I thought Tracy Walker did a decent report of this in The Mail and the video was interesting. So glad Menswear didn't cover it; his reports are usually so bland and 'on message' we usually end up having to tell people what actually happened.

Just watched the video and thought the MP was lacking in stance, but again its not often he has to address a crowd of rightly angrily disappointed folk rather than speaking to his followers, well done to Councillor Beck and Councilor Fisher too I think both of you have gained the ears and support of Hart.

Quote from: steveL on August 16, 2013, 02: PM
I thought Tracy Walker did a decent report of this in The Mail and the video was interesting.

Agreed. Tracy is a good egg and gave a good and impartial report.

Quote from: SRMoore on August 16, 2013, 03: PM

Quote from: steveL on August 16, 2013, 01: PM
Interesting development to try and get the whole matter referred to the full council. It will certainly be interesting to know who supports the move and who doesn't.
http://www.hartlepoolpost.co.uk (http://www.hartlepoolpost.co.uk)

My Lord this is political grandstanding at its absolute worst!

The email states that emails of support need to be submitted by Monday (20th) to 'call in' this decision which would mean that the full council would meet within 7 days I'd imagine. (Approx 26th).

You don't need to be a genius to work out that the deadline set by the Planning Inspector for the final decision from HBC is SUNDAY 19th August. Therefore, even if full council reached a different conclusion to that of the Finance and Policy committee the deadline will have passed.

Whilst I wholeheartedly support the residents of Hart in their fight against these sites I would urge councillors to stop playing political games at their expense.

I also still find it inappropriate for a councillor who may have raised concerns about the choice of Hart sites yet still voted them through, after giving no alternative option, to now try and take the moral high ground.

Pathetic.

Yes the deadline is the 18th, but if the deadline is not met then the consequences would be that the Planning Inspector himself would make the choice from the list of 16 shortlisted sites and at least we could then be sure that he would make the choice using the proper criteria and not based on what best suits the local labour party. . . the people of Hart Ward would class that as a result, I'd say.

Or, he would allow the council a week ot two extra to take into account the strength of feeling that is being expressed.

This is not Grammar School, Shane and the one thing you can be sure of is that the Planning Inspector isn't going to keep the council in detention after school for not meeting a deadline.

At the meeting on Wednesday, you heard the call for HBC to be referred to the Ombudsman for maladministration. If that is about to happen, then let it be for a decision made by the full council and not a subset of a few committee members. At the moment, a good two-thirds of the council can hold their hands up and claim that the decision was nothing to do with them. So let's know where every individual councillor stands on the issue and your Tory mates can start by supporting the referral to full council.

. . . and by the way, neither of the Lilleys voted anything through...you can keep saying it as often as you like but it still won't be true.


.

IF and extension was granted by the planning inspector to allow clarification, that would allow for a possibly a different vote.

Though the fact remains that the planning inspector has the final say anyway and could still choose a site other than Hart.

Shane I have no great preference for any party but you increasing seem to me to  be having your toast buttered on both sides.
I believe you come here and  tell us you are not happy with the way the Tories have sold the votes of the 3 councillors to Labour and I believe in group meeting or when addressing Tory voters you  bask in the glow of one who is doing the best for the Party by accepting the reality of your low support and saying the Labour deal is in the interests of Tory voters.
Wells is just as corrupt and vain as the SCABs.
Wells has done a grubby deal in order to give the Tories a stranglehold on planning applications.
You claim you do not agree but I see no concrete steps on your part to  solve this corruption nor do I see anything like an outright condemnation of this grubby tactic.
I see no difference in  the two parties, Labour and Tory.  They are equally corrupt.

Quote from: SRMoore on August 16, 2013, 06: PM
Since the minutes state that no other site was proposed by them I fail to see how they 'voted' against Hart.

Churchill said:

'History will be kind to me. I know because I am going to write it'

*Must not feed the trolls!*

If you would like to hear how I speak to other party members you are welcome to sit with us at full council meetings or at any of our social events which are usually advertised on our website.

Absolutely not because from the first minute of the meeting when Stephen Akers-Belcher said that he refused to discuss any of the Owton Manor sites, they knew that a political decison was being made and they said so which fits in perfectly well with your own view that the Planning Applications in Burbank were a stitch up.

This is my first post here so be nice everyone  :)

I attended last night's meeting in the village hall and we were informed by Damien Wilson that the letters to the Planning Inspector didn't have to be in until 24th September, rather than 18th August which has been stated everywhere else.  He said it was too late to object about the site but we could object about the decision and process.  This has caused some confusion with myself and others in the village, so could somebody clarify the correct closing date for letters?

I am concerned that other people who were at this meeting think they have until the 24th and will miss the opportunity to object to the decision.

Thanks in advance  :)

Quote from: SRMoore on August 16, 2013, 07: PM

If you would like to hear how I speak to other party members you are welcome to sit with us at full council meetings or at any of our social events which are usually advertised on our website.

With the best will in the world I absolutely detest sitting in on a 'meetings' where professional meeting attenders go through all the formal  bollocks in order to bolster the illusion they are important.
Simply tell me if you think the selling of the Tory vote is a good thing or not. Qualify your answer if you want. Say 'it is good for the Tories as a group but bad for the Public'.
We know your political future is (for the moment) in the hands of Wells and that must tie your hands.
I am not really interested ib evasive answers as to where I can go for further information. I am at the horses mouth so  say what you mean.

If it helps I think all politicians have a sell by date and should be barred from further office after say 5 years. That would stop the empire building and it would be  arrogant in the extreme to believe newcomers would not be as good as the previous occupants of  the office.

Reply to email sent to J Riddle objecting to council choice for travellers site

Thank you for your e-mail.  Objections (or Supports) to the Hartlepool
Local Plan must go to Hartlepool Council in the first instance.  The
Inspector has neither requested nor required that objections be sent
directly to him. The council held a consultation process on this topic,
the closing date was 26th July 2013 and the details and views of all
those who had responded by that date were sent to the Inspector by the
council. Those respondents should have had a communication from me
setting out the date for resumption of the hearings and an indication
that I will shortly be contacting them with further information.
I have
been informed by the council that is the cut-off point for
consultations and I am therefore obliged to work to that list.
As such
I am afraid I cannot accept your comments, I am puzzled as to why you
have been told to contact me, and can only suggest that you contact the
person who did so for further information.

Yours

Jim Riddle

Does anyone know if this is correct?

QuoteSimply tell me if you think the selling of the Tory vote is a good thing or not.

If it were that black and white then, no.

Hi 7g2b,

That is a very interesting email from Mr Riddle. Was that sent to you or someone else?

I have not received a reply like that (or indeed any as yet) but perhaps if it is true then I may be due one.

I'll try and find out.

This confusion and obfuscation is getting ridiculous...We were told at the meeting on Wednesday to get in objections to J Riddle before Sunday.  Now other things are being said and after taking my letter into Bryan Hanson House by hand I am told here he is not the man to write to. Is there deliberate misinformation somewhere to stem objections or can some wise person out there tell me who to write to and when. I wish obviously to object to the whole decision making process.

Ridiculous isn't the word.
I can't remember Wilson saying the 24th September but that doesn't mean he didn't. I could easily have missed it in the noise. I guess the safest thing is to work to August 18th which is Sunday. This whole thing is descending into a farce. re: response to D Riddle.

Has anyone else received the same reply?

The HBC website seems to be off line.

www.hartlepool.gov.uk

Maintenance?

But evidently Riddle doesn't want the letters!!!

This reply was sent to a family member who was also given
the same info over the phone.

This is getting silly.....
http://www.hartlepoolpost.co.uk (http://www.hartlepoolpost.co.uk)

You might have to refresh yur screen a few times (f5)

Just to make everyone aware of what I believe they refer to as a "Point of information" or possibly a "Point of clarification", the Jim Riddle the council advised people to write to is not me. He's no relation, I've never met him, I don't have a clue who he is.

This caused a bit of confusion with some people towards the end of the meeting at Hart as someone on the top table referred to me by name and people got the two of us mixed up.

It seems like quite a few things have been mixed up in the middle of all of this. 

well whoever jimmy riddle is, he's definately taking the P.  :-\
(sorry, but I thought I may as well say it and save everyone else the stress of deciding if they should or not)

Just a thought, could this be a wind up, as in 'Jimmy Riddle' ?

The HBC website now in service

I see there is a recent reference to the Travellers site in


Revision to Policy HSG9 Gypsy and Travellers to include ...

... Revision to Policy HSG9 Gypsy and Travellers to include reference to the proposed site August 2013 Gypsy and Traveller Provision (Extract from Submission Local ...

http://www.hartlepool.gov.uk/download/10120/cd116-amended_policy_hsg9-gypsy_and_traveller_provision

Not available for download (yet?) so cannot see what is in it-probably nothing

 One of the problems (as I see it) in the Council selection process was the council`s preference of an area of 500 square metres per pitch.

see http://www.hartlepool.gov.uk/download/9718/cd111-gypsy_and_traveller_site_assessment-methodology-may_2013

This was much greater than provided for in established local sites (which they visited as part of the process). In these sites, the pitch area size lay between less than 100 square metres (poorer quality) and 300 square metres for the best quality.

So quite sensibly, the council chose an even better pitch size of 500 square metres per pitch, and with the aim of providing 8 pitches in the one site, this led to a desireable minimum area of 4000 square metres for a potential site.

This choice of a single site of such a size, may have had an impact on the selection of sites, which through an exhaustive process, whittled the number of suitable locations down from 465 council owned plots to the final 13.

These then went through a final process, and as we now know, Hart Smallholdings West was chosen, with the nearby Hart Smallholdings East as backup.

The final appraisal for the West site (in May 2013) concluded::

Recommendations

It appears that sites within the urban limits may offer a more sustainable option in terms of transport. The loss of this best and most versatile agricultural land is a major concern in relation to the development of this site. The site scores well in terms of potential for social cohesion and interaction. Should this site come forward any development should not be located in the north east of the site close to the existing heritage assets.

The assessment of the two sites near Hart Village would suggest that the site to the east of the village would be more suitable than this site due to the proximity to the local centre and footpath but also because the site to the east would not lead to the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land.

A little clarification regarding timescales - from today's Mail ....

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/more-time-to-object-over-gypsy-site-1-5961443

Am I the only one who thinks this has a whiff of misinformation being given out by CAB and his aspiring assistant Director aimed at limiting the number of objectors. You tell people that they only have three days to lodge objections when in fact you have 2 or 3 weeks and add in that there is no scope for changing the decision made by the committee when in fact, as we we now know, councillors can refer it to the full council if enough of them want to - perhaps it's the case that the Labour/Tory coalition would rather they didn't?

The biggest fools in all this are the Ward Councillors. It is clear the SCABs are going to keep it in Hart if they can.
Fisher has to chose between his hopes of getting back into Labour and his Ward.

Quote from: testing times on August 17, 2013, 03: PM
Am I the only one who thinks this has a whiff of misinformation being given out by CAB and his aspiring assistant Director aimed at limiting the number of objectors. You tell people that they only have three days to lodge objections when in fact you have 2 or 3 weeks and add in that there is no scope for changing the decision made by the committee when in fact, as we we now know, councillors can refer it to the full council if enough of them want to - perhaps it's the case that the Labour/Tory coalition would rather they didn't?

No you are not the only one.

I have a letter which CAB gave out on Wednesday night clearly stating that all objections has to be sent to Jim Riddle by 18th August.  Although CAB had printed his name at the bottom, the letter wasn't signed, dated or printed on council letterhead - read into that what you will....

I also attended a small meeting on Thursday night in the village hall where Damien Wilson was giving 'advice' on how to object and what criteria to use.  It was at this meeting where he said we had until the day before the meeting at the college on 24th September to submit any objections/representations.

It is a case of one of two things.... deliberate misinformation or total incompetence.  ::)

As for referring the decision back to the full council, I am doubtful they will get the support/numbers they need.  Unfortunately, even though I am sure many councillors will be thinking that the decision is flawed, I think they will be concerned that it may end up in their backyard if they take it back to the full council.

minime:

Unfortunately, even though I am sure many councillors will be thinking that the decision is flawed, I think they will be concerned that it may end up in their backyard if they take it back to the full council.

Exactly what I was thinking. Nothing in it for them in supporting such a proposal.

Interesting how things can be progressed quickly when the need arises. The talk of extending accomodation facilities for people with learning difficulties in Burbank sprung up from nowhere at the 17th June meeting of the Adult Services Committee and yet it took only 11 days for it to be nodded through on the Finance and Policy Committee on the 28th of the same month..

Those at the meeting in Hart last Wednesday will recall CAB's talk of planning permission having been given to the two sites in Burbank which effectively removed them from the list of 16 possible sites. It wasn't true.

As we see from today's Mail article, obtaining planning permission in Hartlepool is a long, long process. What suited the circumstances much, much better was a 6-month exclusivity arrangement which could be arranged far more quickly and which binds neither the Developer or HBC to anything. This is probably just as well, because this isn't even half of a plan. There are doubts if Burbank is the right location for the new accomodation and in any case there is no money at the moment to see it through.

The one thing an exclusivity arangement has going for it is that it stops any prospect of using the site for a Traveller's site in its tracks; something Burbank Councillor, Robbie Payne appears to have been over-the-moon about judging by the inappropriate remark he came out with at the meeting.

A stitch up if ever there was one.

17th June 2013 Adult Services Committee
http://www.hartlepool.gov.uk/egov_downloads/17.06.13_-_Adult_Services_Committee_Decision_Record.pdf (http://www.hartlepool.gov.uk/egov_downloads/17.06.13_-_Adult_Services_Committee_Decision_Record.pdf)

http://www.hartlepool.gov.uk/egov_downloads/17.06.13_-_Adult_Services_Committee_Decision_Record.pdf (http://www.hartlepool.gov.uk/egov_downloads/17.06.13_-_Adult_Services_Committee_Decision_Record.pdf)

28th June 2013 Finance and Policy Committee Meeting
http://www.hartlepool.gov.uk/egov_downloads/28.06.13_-_Finance_and_Policy_Committee_Decision_Record.pdf (http://www.hartlepool.gov.uk/egov_downloads/28.06.13_-_Finance_and_Policy_Committee_Decision_Record.pdf)

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/concern-over-hartlepool-borough-council-planning-delays-1-5961087 (http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/concern-over-hartlepool-borough-council-planning-delays-1-5961087)

The Council have to provide a site.
One will be built.

If Hart manage to  escape then the whole circus starts all over again.
For certain no site will be provided in the Wards of the 2 SCABs.
Senior Labour councillors will also rig it so they escape.
The Tories have to be kept on board so no chance of it going in their Wards.
If I were a non Labour Councillor I would start worrying.
The SCABs are so corrupt they will do anything  to keep power.
I see another change in the Constitution looming..........

If you look at the choice of Hart another way,it is on the outskirts of the town so there is no real reason for the travellers to come into the centre of town. Just a thought.

"The Dear Leader" oftenstates that he is doing his best for Hartlepool, well he could always organise a petition to stop "All Gypsy Sites", I feel sure he could get in excess of 30,000 people to sign it, he would then be able to say to Central Government...... Hartlepool says No to Gypsy Sites. ( I jest of course )

Or he could always get members of "The Mob" to send emails in support of Calling in The Decision.

That would at least be an Open, Transparent & Accountable decision, unlike the underhand self serving decision making that he is overseeing at the moment.

From experience, I would say a 30,000 signature petition would simply be ignored.

We'll be publishing a list of which councillors voted for the 'call-in' and which didn't.

QuoteWe'll be publishing a list of which councillors voted for the 'call-in' and which didn't.

Well at least the residents affected will be safe the knowledge the Conservatives will surely vote to call it in. I mean, this is textbook Daily Mail/ Centre right politics.

The right wing headline writes itself "Gypsies set to ambush rural village".

So that's at least 3 votes........ isn't it?  ::)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAU5MTXmAPY

Also, I think there's been 2 or 3 attempts to establish whether the local conservatives will be backing the move to 'call in' the decision via the Hartlepool Posts twitter feed.

However, as yet whoever mans the tory twitter feed has ducked the question and instead is focussed on pointing out the date for submissions.

I'm sure people in Hart are keen to know what the conservatives think of this. Hart Village and Elwick Village are very similar in lots of ways so it'll take some nerve for a TRUE Conservative to say "Actually yes we support it going in a village surrounded by working farm land".

I see Christopher Akers-Belcher is maintaining his reputation as the biggest liar in town. In tonight's Mail he claims that there was no dissent against choosing the Hart sites during the meeting of the Finance and Policy Decision. A trawl of The Mail past stories shows otherwise:

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/hartlepool-councillor-denies-rumours-that-politics-played-a-part-in-choosing-hart-village-for-gypsy-site-1-5937866 (http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/hartlepool-councillor-denies-rumours-that-politics-played-a-part-in-choosing-hart-village-for-gypsy-site-1-5937866)

Well spotted, Marky. I remembered the Mail write up but couldn't find it. What I did spot is a piece on the local Tory site telling us of their opposition to all sites which makes me wonder why they are now refusing to sign up to the chance to have the matter referred back to the council.

"Hartlepool Conservatives are launching a campaign to halt the unacceptable proposals put forward for the provision of gypsy & traveller sites in the town. We believe that the current 13 shortlisted sites are completely unacceptable and have shown no regard for the views of neighbouring residents."

http://www.hartlepoolconservatives.org.uk/news/conservatives-slam-unacceptable-gypsy-traveller-site-proposals (http://www.hartlepoolconservatives.org.uk/news/conservatives-slam-unacceptable-gypsy-traveller-site-proposals)

You're not really 'wondering' are you Steve? You know as well as I do that we have a Labour/Tory Coalition in HBC. The Tories may have a website; they just don't have any Tory councillors.

 ;D Yes, OK but all we're talking about here is the chance to have the whole issue given an airing by the full council and I don't really see how anyone refuse to sign up to that given the strength of public feeling about it. You would think Tories especially would welcome that given Eric Pickles stance on the issue.

Quote from: steveL on August 19, 2013, 11: AM
;D Yes, OK but all we're talking about here is the chance to have the whole issue given an airing by the full council and I don't really see how anyone refuse to sign up to that given the strength of public feeling about it. You would think Tories especially would welcome that given Eric Pickles stance on the issue.

Given the stance by Eric Pickles & the statement by Hartlepool Conservatives............

Speaking about the launch of the campaign, Shane Moore said "whilst I appreciate that the council is legally bound to provide a suitable site for the gypsy & traveller community I cannot help but share serious concerns held by residents who live next door to these proposed sites who fear that it will have a detrimental effect on property prices, visual impact, insurance premiums and potentially an increase in crime". He went on to say "over the coming week we will have petitions located in local amenities close to the named areas and we will be encouraging as many residents as possible to attend the public consultation meetings and to speak to your local councillors to have your opinions heard".

You really have to wonder exactly what goes on with the TorLabs, when a statement like the above is issued by their local party you have to ask, Why wont they support "Calling In" the original council decision ?

It seems as though they have their own version of "The Dear Leader"

The difficulty here is when calling this in you have to name another preferred site.. the tories dont have one that is pretty obvious now, so as PHF are calling it in what site will they be nominating?

Arc, is that 100% certain that to call it in an alternative has to be proposed NOW? I thought it just meant it would go back for further discussion?

Im not 100% sure but it seems likely that to be the case.. it seems a bit perverse opposing a site without having an alternative so close to the deadline.. to be honest david i dont think it makes much difference becaise as it stands the government inspector will end up choosing the site.. but it does still ask the question if PHF were in power where would they propose the travellers site to be?

Well, my personal answer to that is already on record. I only speak for me though. I'm just a member of PHF currently. Nothing more.

Thats why i cant take PHF seriously there are no concrete policies and it appears to be made up as they go along.. have you never thought the way of bringing change to labour is by joining and airing your graces?

I think the Hart protester think they have bought themselves out of any civic responsibility. It is usualy the case that those with a bit more money than most of the others expect special treatment.
There are all sorts of things we con't like to live near but they have to go somewhere. The people of Hart should tell us what exactly they think their share of the  public burden they are willing to share. I expect the reply to be 'zero'
As for the gypsy site it will end up being dumped on those who are less able to complain. It is certain it will end up imposed on those already bearing more than their fair share of the towns problems. The well connected NIMBY will always prevail.
In advance of  any complaints the Labour group are (in my eyes) a very  well connected group of super NIMBYs who will protect their own  living area before their Ward. Leyburn street out and Manor back in!

Quote from: ARC86 on August 19, 2013, 10: PM
Thats why i cant take PHF seriously there are no concrete policies and it appears to be made up as they go along.. have you never thought the way of bringing change to labour is by joining and airing your graces?

Talking of herding cats I see the UKIP Chief Executive has given up on that bunch of loonies..................

It makes me laugh how people view Hart as exclusive, or posh.  There is nothing here and little damage to do.  Its a small community that is based on generations of families mainly.  Visit the raby arms or white hart and look at how posh those pubs are... 1970's toilets passed retro fashion a while ago.  The gypsy community, if based here would have to go into town for supplies, as us villagers do. 

If you think the towns not going to be impacted having gypsy settlements in Hart then your completely misinformed and short sighted.  Theyll most certainly go shopping in town, and for free!

Quote from: Kato on August 19, 2013, 11: PM
It makes me laugh how people view Hart as exclusive, or posh.  There is nothing here and little damage to do.  Its a small community that is based on generations of families mainly.  Visit the raby arms or white hart and look at how posh those pubs are... 1970's toilets passed retro fashion a while ago.  The gypsy community, if based here would have to go into town for supplies, as us villagers do. 

If you think the towns not going to be impacted having gypsy settlements in Hart then your completely misinformed and short sighted.  Theyll most certainly go shopping in town, and for free!

Laugh away but I clearly wrote 'a bit more money than most'.
Anyway it is all moot because the residents will not accept the site under any circumstances. The aim is to get it shifted full stop.
For your information I live in the town and accept the fact the site will be built somewhere. I bet it ends up nearer me than you.

Quote from: ARC86 on August 19, 2013, 09: PM
Im not 100% sure but it seems likely that to be the case.. it seems a bit perverse opposing a site without having an alternative so close to the deadline.. to be honest david i dont think it makes much difference becaise as it stands the government inspector will end up choosing the site.. but it does still ask the question if PHF were in power where would they propose the travellers site to be?

Absolute twaddle.

Any decision by a policy committee can be called in. Do they all deal with gypsy sites?

Quotehave you never thought the way of bringing change to labour is by joining and airing your graces?

The Labour Party doesn't exist in Hartlepool, not anymore.

This isn't to do with where's posh or not, it's to do with the reasons the site was chosen. If this was a Tory controlled council and they had stuck it i the poorest, Labour voting area they could find I'd be just as angry. Decisions should be made on their merits, this was made on the basis of votes and that is despicable. Indeed the only thing worse is the fact that the Tories are helping them do it!!

Shane can talk all he wants about Tories standing up for people, but when push came to shove - they didn't!!!

Quote from: ARC86 on August 19, 2013, 09: PM
Im not 100% sure but it seems likely that to be the case.. it seems a bit perverse opposing a site without having an alternative so close to the deadline.. to be honest david i dont think it makes much difference becaise as it stands the government inspector will end up choosing the site.. but it does still ask the question if PHF were in power where would they propose the travellers site to be?

In reply to Comrade ARC89, before the meeting of the 8th Geoff Lilley spoke to Peter Devlin and questioned if the meeting could be seen as being fair or impartial, bearing in mind that four of the sites were in Manor House ward where a by-election was imminent in six days.  Devlin thought the meeting should go ahead.

With the best will in the world any Councillor worth their salt would fight to keep the ward they represent or live in out of the final shuffle, therefore, one could not expect a fair and balanced decision.  Councillors should have recognized that fact and simply referred all the sites on the short list to the Planning Inspector for him to decide based on planning criteria.  Instead the decision was a political one with little regard to the criteria used by Officers - instead choosing their own self and party interest first.

The simple question is, was it right to put self and party first.  Or should they have recognized the  right thing to do under the circumstances was to allow for a fair and impartial decision be taken by a planning inspector.

This issue showns just why Hartlepool is in the state its in, we as residents, couldn`t stand together long enough to get a photograph taken.

"The Mob" will be rather pleased at people slagging each other off over the location of the Gypsy Sites, it takes the pressure off them for making the decision in the first place, I can`t remember much an outcry when planning permission was given for the massive dump on the sea front & the recycling "Plants" around Belle Vue ( apart from the local residents )

I suspect those areas will prove a longer term problem for Hartlepool than the Gypsy Sites, yet how many people protested at the granting of planning permission.

It isn`t about "Where" the sites have been located, it`s about how that decision came about, & was it fair & impartial, clearly it wasn`t, it was a purely a politicaly motivated decison that is now being shown up for what it was.

What's wrong with Hartlepool Borough Council in a nutshell

http://www.hartlepoolpost.co.uk (http://www.hartlepoolpost.co.uk)

Perhaps it's the way I'm reading it but in that e-mail to Fred, is it not saying that you're not allowed to lodge an objection unless you have already done so when the first raft of 'consultaion' meetings took place?

Quote from: marky on August 20, 2013, 11: AM
What's wrong with Hartlepool Borough Council in a nutshell

http://www.hartlepoolpost.co.uk (http://www.hartlepoolpost.co.uk)

So much for Cllr P Beck`s Blah Blah Blah at the recent meeting, he has shown about as much commitment to his Ward Residents as he did as a Manor Residents Trustee, talk about "All Wind & P*ss"

As for Cllr J Robinson.......................... Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Nothing comes to mind.

The TorLab coalition also did as expected, although i have to say, it must be very difficult to "View The Local Pespective" when your head is stuck up Labours Ar*s.

Hopefully the Residents of Hart & The Rest of Hartlepool show up on Sunday 1st of September to Join in "The Ceremonial Mayors" march & to express their opinion of "The Consort".

Those Who Did Not Support the Call-In

Akers-Belcher x2
Beck
Robinson
Cook
Jackson
James
Griffin
Sheilds
Tempest
Richardson
Wells
Morris
Loynes
Simmons
Barclay
Payne
Fleet
Sirs
Anslie
Cranney

#####

Appalling, Beck and Robinson should hang there heads in shame. I cannot understand after Beck stating at the Parish Council meeting about having full support and backing the residents all the way. I am getting lost for words with this shambles.

Socialist low life.

Quote from: Extra77 on August 20, 2013, 05: PM
I cannot understand after Beck stating at the Parish Council meeting about having full support and backing the residents all the way. I am getting lost for words with this shambles.

The decision was rigged to put the site at Hart. It was a political decision to have the least impact on safe Labour seats.
Hart is not thought to be a 'natural' Labour seat.
If they lose out to the Conservatives then it is no great problem given Wells has sold the Tory votes for his own personal advancement.
The SCABs made several statements prior to the Election that they can not now go back on.
Everything is being done to protect the SCABs and avoid exposing them as  lying cheats.

I can put it no simpler- You are fooked.

You have been chosen because you have  2 utterly spineless Labour placemen who will keep ducking and diving as long as the SCABs control the party.
Fisher is just as guilty. He sold his vote for the allowances and now  they have stabbed him in the back for his pains. He sold us out and the SCABs sold him out.

Given the  way Politics works in Hartlepool I expect Wilcox to stand in Hart next time round and win on an anti-corruption platform!

I should also warn you that if you let any of the Labour/Indy  cyphers 'help' your campaign you are effectively keeping the SCABs informed on your every move.
Ditch the snakes. They are not on your side.

Seems as though Stockton Council also push through developments despite the wishes of many residents:

A new development near Yarm will not be "called in" and is to go ahead. Seems to have been the case recently there for a number of building projects.

quote:

The National Planning Casework Unit decided not to call-in the case as it was not against national planning guidelines. It is the third time this year the Government has upheld decisions made by Stockton council to permit house building programmes in south Stockton.

It isn`t in the same category as the Hart issue, obviously, but it does show how some councils can push through
controversial developments.

Many argued it was on protected green land, would create a gated community keeping sections of the community separate and could damage wildlife. 

http://tinyurl.com/l2suvyn

I'm genuinely not trolling here, just making an observation. Shane is conspicuously quiet given the 'conservatives' reluctance to 'call in' the decision on Hart and the gypsy site.

Over recent weeks we've seen the Tories support Labours funding of unions, back them in placing a travellers site on green belt land in a village, say literally nothing as a Labour councillor resigned in disgrace after failing to pay national minimum wage, as well as a multitude of other issues which blatantly go against everything a true conservative stands for.

All Ray needs to do now is march side by side with the miners at the next gala in Durham, re-nationalise the railways, hoist the red flag above the band stand in Ward Jackson Park, and he'll be challenging the A-B's for a leadership position.

Only in Hartlepool...

Your mistake is thinking the 2 parties are Tory and/or Labour. What we have in Hartlepool is Rule by Decree.
Two immensely egotistical people have  joined forces with a kindred soul to impose their will and gain revenge for the  lifetime of abuse & ridicule that was their lot before Mandelson showed them how to milk the system.
There is no party politics only spite and revenge visited on those considered enemies.
It is about dressing up, parading and waving to the poor people outside the carriage.
Anyone want to guess who will be  first to be  nominated  for Freeman of the Borough?

Alan Foster?

Quote from: mk1 on August 20, 2013, 08: PM
Your mistake is thinking the 2 parties are Tory and/or Labour. What we have in Hartlepool is Rule by Decree.
Two immensely egotistical people have  joined forces with a kindred soul to impose their will and gain revenge for the  lifetime of abuse & ridicule that was their lot before Mandelson showed them how to milk the system.
There is no party politics only spite and revenge visited on those considered enemies.
It is about dressing up, parading and waving to the poor people outside the carriage.
Anyone want to guess who will be  first to be  nominated  for Freeman of the Borough?

Where`s "Maximilien Robespierre" when you really need him ?

P

Quote from: marky on August 20, 2013, 12: PM
Perhaps it's the way I'm reading it but in that e-mail to Fred, is it not saying that you're not allowed to lodge an objection unless you have already done so when the first raft of 'consultaion' meetings took place?

That is exactly right, we lodged an objection to the decision and were told it would not be accepted even though we also did for the first meetings!  The reason being.....it was sent from a different email address  >:( Now we are not sure if we can still put it in? Who to send it to or by when seeing as all the info :-[ we were given infront of the Chief Exec, Councillors & hundreds of residents at the meeting was "wrong"!!

Oh and FYI the reason our councillors didnt stand up for the call in.....they needed permission from their party

QuoteOh and FYI the reason our councillors didnt stand up for the call in.....they needed permission from their party

Utter rubbish...... they could have defied party orders and voted to call it in. Granted in doing so they would have defied the whip and would be kicked out of the Labour Party, but at least it would have shown they put their residents first.

They didn't need permission... they needed a spine.

Quote from #Worried

Oh and FYI the reason our councillors didnt stand up for the call in.....they needed permission from their party


It just goes to show where the Principles of your Councillors are when they "Buckle" under pressure from "The Mob"....... They don`t have any.

Bullying in any sphere is totally unacceptable, but it appears to be the norm with this mob, hence Brash & Hargreaves being thrown out of "The Party"

I suspect Bullies have a serious problem with their physical & mental insecurities & use bullying as means to control others, in reallity however they invariably turn out to be sad individuals who have a problem with their own megalomania.

Quote from: DRiddle on August 21, 2013, 08: AM

Quote

They didn't need permission... they needed a spine.

Good to know some of them have one! 

Ours may not have a spine but they certainly have some nerve and don't shy away from embarrassment. How can PB sit in a residents meeting 2 hours after the 5pm deadline and tell them he's asked the party for said "permission" like he's waiting for the green for go to arrive......infact in the light of whats happening, its beyond embarrassing.

It now seems that Hart Parish Council can be a conduit for those who wish to add to the protests! What an unprofessional, chaotic mess - surely an HBC 'special'?  ???

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/council-clears-up-hart-gypsy-site-objections-process-1-5971074

Looks like the travellers have chosen their preferred site.About 5 caravans next to B&Q to-day.

We also have a nice selection of 4x4's and horses tethered by the Raby Arms. Didnt take them long at all :o

And my timely reply from Jim Riddle...

Thank you for your e-mail.
I work to the Inspector of the Hartlepool
Local Plan. Objections (or Supports) to the Hartlepool Local Plan must
go to Hartlepool Council in the first instance.  The Inspector has
neither requested nor required that objections be sent directly to him.
The council held a consultation process on this topic, the closing date
was 26th July 2013 and the details and views of all those who had
responded by that date were sent to the Inspector by the council. He
has been informed by the council that the 26th of July was the cut-off
point for new comments and I am therefore obliged to work to that
deadline.
Those respondents should have had a communication from me
setting out the date for resumption of the hearings and an indication
that I will shortly be contacting them with further information.
As
such, unless you are recorded as having responded to the July 26th
consultation (and have therefore already received correspondence from
me regarding the resumption of the Hearings)  I am therefore afraid I
cannot accept your comments and will forward them to Hartlepool Borough
Council.

Yours

Jim Riddle

I have the exact same e-mail to by way of a reply. Word for word the same. Even though my issue was with the meeting it was decided in and the councillors ignoring their own officers advice, not the actual choice. (although I don't agree with the choice either).

And from a private email address... I think the one thing I have realised from all of this is how damaged our town will become with this current shambles looking out for themselves and not the good of the town or its people.

Its a shame they dont realise it

Yet another good reason to turn up at The Mayors Parade on Sunday 1st of September, he has invited members of the public to attend............ hopefull a few hundred people will turn up & express their feelings about his Year In Office.

It is the ideal opportunity for the towns residents to twang the elastic band of Delusion Leadership.

You going fred?

Just for information, two weeks ago I e-mailed the council's CEO about this parade. I stated that it was possibly the WORST thing the council could have done in light of recent events, that it was gratuitous, self indulgent and it showed total contempt to the electorate.

I also stated it was a total waste of money and a waste of the time of council officers.

I received a reply back, and lets just say the content of the reply didn't agree with the points i'd raised.

I also contacted the mail (as I believe did several non labour councillors) and practically begged them to run a 'resident complains about parade' type story.

But their editorial decision was NOT to do so, because the parade is being held under the guise of charity work and the mail don't want to be seen to be negative towards charity work.

It was also stated in various correspondence I had that the parade is NOT being held as a celebration of our ceremonial mayor. Which is strange because it's widely known in HBC that a letter was sent from Stephen A-B to all councillors stating that it is.

Only in Hartlepool...

Am I rite in thinking the independent planning inspector can now only choose between the two Hart Sites? It was stated in the Hart Parish council meeting it was not the case. However the next meeting about this on the agenda only has these two sites.....

I have this feeling everything said from our councillor s at the parish meeting was complete s***e


Cheers

"However the next meeting about this on the agenda only has these two sites....."

Morning Extra77 - could you just say which minutes you're referring to, HBC or the Parish Council and I'll have a look?

The idea of the referral to Full Council was to try to get the council to refer all sites to the Planning Inspector given that the decision had been blatantly political. As it stands, with only one site being recommended together with a fall-back site, both of which are in Hart, the normal outcome of this would be for the Planning Inspector to go along with the council's recommendation unless there is a problem with that site or he can be persuaded to do otherwise.

I hope thats not the case as we will be dragging the site closer to the houses at the bottom of the village and  Clavering and Bishop Cuthbert than it is already.
With the 500 new houses being planned in this area this is the last thing we need.

Does anybody have an election leaflet that states Labour successfully kept the gypsy's away from Manor area?
If so can they put it on here for all to see.

Apologies I meant agenda for the meeting...... It's been a long week ! This was emailed out by Jim Riddle....

24th September at HCFE.....

Clavering Codhead, that's half my worry !

Ah right, I don't have a copy or access to that. Perhaps someone could post it on the forum.

"Does anybody have an election leaflet that states Labour successfully kept the gypsy's away from Manor area?"

Yes, we'd all like to see a copy of that. I tried to make the point at the Village Hall meeting that it's not possible to claim that you fought to keep the traveller sites out of one area while, at the same time, also claiming that you took an impartial and objective stance at the meeting of the Finance and Policy Committee which made the decision. This is exactly what Labour did. 

Reply to Stevel and others.... I have not seen a copy of the leaflet distributed around the Manor during the recent election but I sense it may contain comments distributed to the prejudice of others/directed towards others,ie the Travellers therefore is it possible offences may have been committed here?   I can never understand how Insurance companies get away with trying to sell their goods using the terms "english speaking call centres etc"  as a selling point as I feel it has racist overtones.   Just a thought.   If pursued in such a manner this could force another By election!!!!!

Managed to sign the On line petition however I was unable to add any comments, as a result I would like to mention them now.

The reason I am against the proposed travellers site(s)at Hart are due to the  fact I lived in the Village circa 1972 to 1980. Both of my daughters were christened  at the local church and we as family are very fond of the area.   I would like to suggest that if anybody wants to look into the future ,if the proposals are allowed ,they take the No.22 Arriva bus from Hartlepool to Durham (via P'Lee Bus Stn.) which then goes through Shotton, Haswell area ,Wheatley Hill and Thornley.In particular I would like the Council leader and the sheep that blindly follow him to behold the sights. Plenty of boarded up houses and caravans and horses.  I would beg the question who is going to "police "the proposed site and ask the questions "where have you come from"also "how long are you intending to stay"   Perhaps the folks from the aforementioned  villages might re-locate to be nearer to the Town.  Not what the site should be about.   This is what happens when the idiots are allowed to run the asylum.   Bring back the likes of Sir Ralph Ward Jackson and other worthies who have the best interests of "artlepool", as pronounced by you know who, at heart.!!!! Rant over.

Quote from: notenoughsaid on August 22, 2013, 11: PM
Managed to sign the On line petition however I was unable to add any comments, as a result I would like to mention them now.

The reason I am against the proposed travellers site(s)at Hart are due to the  fact I lived in the Village circa 1972 to 1980. Both of my daughters were christened  at the local church and we as family are very fond of the area.   I would like to suggest that if anybody wants to look into the future ,if the proposals are allowed ,they take the No.22 Arriva bus from Hartlepool to Durham (via P'Lee Bus Stn.) which then goes through Shotton, Haswell area ,Wheatley Hill and Thornley.In particular I would like the Council leader and the sheep that blindly follow him to behold the sights. Plenty of boarded up houses and caravans and horses.  I would beg the question who is going to "police "the proposed site and ask the questions "where have you come from"also "how long are you intending to stay"   Perhaps the folks from the aforementioned  villages might re-locate to be nearer to the Town.  Not what the site should be about.   This is what happens when the idiots are allowed to run the asylum.   Bring back the likes of Sir Ralph Ward Jackson and other worthies who have the best interests of "artlepool", as pronounced by you know who, at heart.!!!! Rant over.

We could all meet up on Sunday 1st September on the steps of The Civic... around 10.30am then all rant together & maybe have a pint in the King Johns...... a Residents Meeting... only not in Hart Village Hall.

This email has been sent to all councillors and the Hartlepool Mail and Hartlepool Post

I am very saddened and angered over the zero support for the Call in from the two Hart Ward councillors Mr Beck and Mrs Robinson. They were elected to represent the HART ward and to fight for us.

Please do not expect any support from the people in your ward in the future. I fear you have cooked your goose!

Thank you Mr Fisher for your continued support.

I asked Mr Akers-Belcher at the meeting in Hart on 14th August why he chose both Hart sites. He Replied "for the good of Hartlepool"

The decision, who Mr Akers-Belcher categorically said was "not a political one" to all at the meeting held on 14th August in Hart does not ring true in light of the fact that their own planning departments report clearly indicates the two sites chosen were least sustainable.

How much of the tax payers money was spent on this report??

Mr Akers -Belcher said again in the public meeting in front of hundreds of people we need to "..balance the budget"  Wasting money on a report that is not even adhered to which is geared for the most economically viable site does not "BALANCE THE BUDGET"

He said the land at Briar fields was earmarked for development to create wealth for the town.

Are not the two sites at Hart PRIME REAL ESTATE which would create much WEALTH for the town?

How the people of Hartlepool can sleep at night knowing this man is in charge of a OUR BUDGET!!

Please tell me again this is not a "political decision"!!

I have worked for 25 years in the health service and I am responsible for public money, YOUR MONEY. I am very aware of the cost of everything and educate people around me to be very careful and not to be wasteful.

Mr Akers-Belcher has made a decision for votes, not for the GOOD of the Hartlepool people. How much money has he lost Hartlepool to stay in office.

People of Hartlepool THIS IS YOUR MONEY.

In this time of austerity every one is feeling the pinch and it is very important we have people in public office who can make unpopular decisions for the GOOD of the Hartlepool People. Mr Akers-Belcher has clearly made the WRONG JUDGEMENT for POLITICAL GAIN.

To me this is MAL-ADMINISTRATION

As a resident of Hart all I want is a fair decision based on an UNBIASED REPORT THAT I PAID FOR.

Regards
Martin Myers

HART RESIDENT

That's a very good letter. One other thing i'd like to make more people aware of (as I believe many people from Hart Village are now using this site) is as follows.

Currently, you're taking a lot of flack from organisations who represent the travelling community for your 'THINK OF THE CHILDREN!' argument. (Hear me out i'm not criticising as such).

It's perhaps worth knowing that in a recent council meeting 2 members of the public, myself and Fred who also uses this site, raised various issues about Manor Residents Association.

A debate by councillors span off from the questions and it involved the issue of whether that funding to MRA should stop IMMEDIATELY.

Councillor Akers-Belcher (Christopher) obviously argued against this.

His main reason for saying Manor Residents needed its funding stream ......?

To continue to run its pre-school breakfast clubs... so that the little children who live on Manor House can have their cereal and toast before school.

So essentially, he was arguing 'think of the children'.


N.B

Since that meeting Manor Residents Association has basically gone bust, is trying to fend off bailiffs, STILL hasn't paid the 4 employees the money they're owned from the tribunals etc etc. So presumably those children won't be getting their breakfast anytime soon.

Some people connected with this mess might though..... hopefully it'll be porridge.

"The decision, who Mr Akers-Belcher categorically said was "not a political one" to all at the meeting held on 14th August in Hart"

What you have to realise is that "The Mob" aka, the labour group in Hartlepool Council is a group of people who are controlled by "The Dear Leader" & half a dozen acolytes, the other councillors are just there do as they are told.

You only need to attend a Full Council meeting to realise this fact, any decisions are made in a committe room well before Councillors enter the Chamber to "Perform" in front of the public, & with the Tory Councillors voting consistently in support of any motion "The Mob" put forward, democracy in Hartlepool is something of a sham.

The Majority of Labour Councillors never contribute, apart from the "For or Against" answer required when a vote takes place, I have actually witnessed some councillors being asleep during meetings, in fact in a recent Meeting 1 councillor had to raise the hand of another & shout "For" during a vote.

Independent thoughts are frowned upon & in the case of Cllrs Brash & Hargreaves, punishable by expulsion from "The Party", hence we have ended up with a core group who`s personal ambitions overide any considerations for the benefit of the town.

The current Leadership are on an ego trip that is all to apparent to anyone & everyone, they operate a policy of "Do as i say.... Not do as I do" Hartlepool has had more adverse publicity since "The Dear Leader & His Consort" assumed command than during the 10 year Reign of S Drummond, (& i never thought i would say that)

The residents of Hart were dismissed with utter contempt by C Akers Belcher & for him to claim it was a Non Political decision is a glaring example to us all, of his Personal Qualities.

I don't see him lasting. Just look at the rate that they've changed Labour leader over the last few years unless you believe in the observation that s**t aways rises to the top.

I would like to point out that I sent an e-mail to Mr Beck on 21st August asking him to explain why he did not vote to have the decision re-examined. He has not replied.

just for the record - it wasn't a vote as such - each councillor was asked by e-mail to tell the chief solicitor that he wanted the decision referred - amounts to the same thing I guess, though no doubt someone will claim that they never got the e-mail

XIX69 - the Mail comments section....looks like Allan Barclay to me!

In light of what is going on both with the sites and how the decision was made, a group of us have got together to form a residents association.

Hart, Bishop Cuthbert & Clavering (HBC Residents)

We have set up an on-line petition, which we were originally told would carry no weight in the consultation along with duplicate letters. (both of which were produced and accepted for other sites???)  ???

This petition only takes a couple of minutes and will allow you to make comments and share via facebook & twitter. If you have a concern regarding the sites, please visit the site by following the link and show your support.

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/hartlepool-borough-council-review-the-decision-of-placing-gypsy-traveller-sites-in-hart-village

May I suggest that you all get together and sign a letter of no confidence in Cllrs Beck and Robinson demanding their immediate resignation. If they don't resign and you have enough signatures, say 90%, of the voters of the Hart Ward, then you can write to the Chief solicitor. In this letter you can point out that the letter of no confidence means that the  named Cllrs are no longer welcome in Hart and thus are unable to represent the people of the Hart Ward. In effect, you have sacked them. As well as sending the letter to the Chief Solicitor you can copy the BBC, the Hartlepool Mail and any other newspaper, media company you can think of. You should be able to get a copy of the Voters Register from Fisher so that you don't miss out anyone.

I am sure contributors to this site can help by writing the letter of no confidence and the follow up letter and posting them on here so that you can choose &/or adapt them.

By doing this you will not only be helping yourselves but showing the people of Hartlepool the way. Return the contempt that Cllr C Akers-Belcher showed all of you at the recent meeting in Hart Village Hall.

Thank you for your suggestions.

Its about time some Councillors and Mr Akers-Belcher learned not to underestimate the people of Hart Ward or Hartlepool!!
>:(

I'm not saying DON'T do what Hartlepudlian suggested, I think any pressure is good pressure.... but...

If your complaint is deemed to be anything other than in relation to the councils code of conduct... it'll initially go to the CEO, Dave Stubbs. (this is from the councils website regarding complaints against members)

Quote'Complaints about the behaviour of elected members, e.g. failure to provide promised assistance, offensive behaviour etc., will generally be referred either to the political party organisations, where applicable, or, at the Chief Executive's discretion, to the Standards Committee'.

So it's 99% certain Mr Stubbs will just refer your complaint against Mr Beck to..... Mr Akers-Belcher. (who'll likely ignore it or dismiss it showing utter contempt).

If you DO decide to complain in the sense that you argue Beck and Robinson have gone against their code of conduct, I can assure you, from personal experience that ultimately they'll just say ..... 'no they haven't'...... even if, as in my own particular case, it was BLATANTLY 100% obvious to anyone that the code of conduct HAD been broken.

It's hard to actually know WHAT to do.

I wish you luck and I certainly wouldn't want to discourage you in your efforts but I have to say that any faith placed in HBC's complaints process is misplaced. Just like the process which decided to locate the Traveller sites in Hart, the Complaints Procedure has been totally politicised.

Driddle. I purposely didn't use the word COMPLAINT, as we all know what happens to them.

A letter of no confidence signed by every voter in Hart, hopefully, sent to Beck and Robinson is personal to them and is no business of the Council. If they don't resign, then the follow up letter to the Chief Solicitor stating that the Cllrs have been asked to resign in a letter of no confidence addressed to them. They have not resigned and you, the people of Hart, are demanding their resignations as they are not welcome in Hart and can no longer represent the people of the Hart Ward. In effect they have been sacked and are not to show their faces in the Ward again.

No complaints, just demands.

No doubt that the Labour Group will state that they were democratically elected etc. but copies of the letters sent to every paper, radio/TV station that you can think of will surely cause such a stink that it could still have the desired result. It may even instigate a full, Public Inquiry into the running of HBC by the Cllrs and senior officers.

Give it a go, mate. It certainly won't do any harm but don't expect any response from Beck or Robinson. The best approach is to highlight your demand for resignations to The Mail who will then make a point of phoning both Councillors for a response.

Fair enough, as I say, give it a go. It can't hurt. I think i'm right in saying that nobody has the right to sack them though. The main way they'd be got rid of is if they were facing jail for something... (which would need to be a 3 month custodial sentence). Aside from that, i'm not actually sure there is a way.

Unless of course they did the decent thing and resigned.

I wouldn`t disagree with Hartlepudlions point, the more people who know how decisions are arrived at by "The Mob" the better, however the letter to Cllrs Beck & Robinson would  be a waste of time & effort, they have already disappeared from public view & you will only see them again in the council chamber... i am led to believe there is a secret tunnel into the civic from Westbrooke Ave, so members of "The Mob" can gain access without members of the public seeing them.

A letter to the Borough Solicitor in my opinion would be worth sending, if only to formalise the electorates position, but i certainly don`t think it will be acted upon, The HBC Standards Board is a complete waste of time, numerous people have had just cause for making a "Complaint" & most of them have been dismissed out of hand.

The point about making the situation Known To The Press & Media Companies is the "Key Point", the question is "How do You Do It" ?

We have all seen on the TV recently how 200 or 300 or 400 Hundred people can make their situation know to a wider audience in a Civilised & Orderly way.

The Ceremonial Mayor has "Invited The Residents of Hartlepool To Attend His Parade" On Sunday 1st of September.

I would have though that by accepting "The Mayors Invitation" the Residents of Hart, Clavering & Bishop Cuthbert could quite legitimately & openly express their feelings on The Mayors year in Office.

But i suppose that kind of decision is something for the Hart Parish Council & it`s members to take under consideration, along with the newly formed HBC Residents Group.

It may not be possible to sack them but by doing so you have brought your dissatisfaction to HBC and the wider world. Labour North should react and may disown them and the dear leader and consort. The mob don't play fair so don't you and go for them anyway you think possible. Fred, I don't have faith in HBC complaints procedure which is why I say don't mention the word complaint and address the no confidence direct to Beck and Robinson. Their non response would still be an answer and will show their contempt for you, the voter.

Publish the letters and answers/non answers anywhere you can, Facebook, twitter, libraries, newspapers etc et

Did you know that you can pay CT in 12 instalments rather than the Council's preferred 10? This means they receive their monies two months before the end of the financial year, a nice little interest free loan from us. If you decide to change, then make sure the Council knows why eg no/bad representation by your Cllrs. Email Stubbs so that he knows your feelings. Enough do it and they should be worried.

You know, the daft thing about all of this is that even if Beck and Robinson had e-mailed Peter Devlin in support of the call-in, there still wouldn't have been enough similar e-mails to reach the magic 17 indications of support for the move. In other words, both Councillors would have been quite safe to support the move keeping both their electorate and CAB happy at the same time.

The fact is that Labour just don't work like that; there isn't the flexibility in their mode operandi to accomodate such situations. It's a case of 'you're either for us or against us' and the role of sheep like Beck and Robinson is to behave like sheep and do as they are told.

Beck virtually prostrated himself in front of the audience at Hart Village Hall and was applauded for his remorse but it's quite obvious now that he didn't mean a word of it. As for the letter of 'disgust' that he had sent to CAB and read out at the meeting, I would virtually guarantee that it had been a collaborative effort between Beck and CAB. There is no way that when Beck read it out that CAB wouldn't already have been aware of its contents. If Beck really believed in what he said there could have been no problem in supporting the call-in.

The hope will be that all of this will be forgotten by the time election time come as around. As David said, it's Fisher who is up for re-election next May; Beck has until 2015 before facing the electorate.

Quote from: #Worried on August 25, 2013, 09: AM
In light of what is going on both with the sites and how the decision was made, a group of us have got together to form a residents association.

Hart, Bishop Cuthbert & Clavering (HBC Residents)

We have set up an on-line petition, which we were originally told would carry no weight in the consultation along with duplicate letters. (both of which were produced and accepted for other sites???)  ???

This petition only takes a couple of minutes and will allow you to make comments and share via facebook & twitter. If you have a concern regarding the sites, please visit the site by following the link and show your support.

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/hartlepool-borough-council-review-the-decision-of-placing-gypsy-traveller-sites-in-hart-village

Signed...canny few signed so far let's hope it continues  ;)

Quote from: Hartlepudlion on August 25, 2013, 12: PM
It may not be possible to sack them but by doing so you have brought your dissatisfaction to HBC and the wider world. Labour North should react and may disown them and the dear leader and consort. The mob don't play fair so don't you and go for them anyway you think possible. Fred, I don't have faith in HBC complaints procedure which is why I say don't mention the word complaint and address the no confidence direct to Beck and Robinson. Their non response would still be an answer and will show their contempt for you, the voter.

Publish the letters and answers/non answers anywhere you can, Facebook, twitter, libraries, newspapers etc et

Did you know that you can pay CT in 12 instalments rather than the Council's preferred 10? This means they receive their monies two months before the end of the financial year, a nice little interest free loan from us. If you decide to change, then make sure the Council knows why eg no/bad representation by your Cllrs. Email Stubbs so that he knows your feelings. Enough do it and they should be worried.

Hartlepudlion....................

You answered 2 of the points & i admire your optimism in expecting a response from HBC & "The Mob", unfortunately i have to offer the opinion that you are Peeing into the face of the wind.

I would appreciate your Opinion on the Last Point i made on my Post, i can assure you, that the only way you will have any effect on "The Dear Leader & The Mob" is to widen the number of people who actually Give A Flying Fandango about the town....get those people to actually turn up & make their thoughts known to Labour North & The Media.

Then & only then is there a chance of reigning in The Egomaniacs that currently pass for civic leaders.

Yes Fred I think it is a good idea to respond to the invitation to take part in the parade. They could unveil their banners, chant etc once the parade has started. Or they could line the route with their demands for resignation etc? Silent protest at the church as the consort and guests enter the church? All is possible and I am sure that many other citizens will join them in their protest. The only problem is organisation and the fact that the mob read this site. Other methods of communication need to be used other than this site. Perhaps the younger generation can come up with something. They were pretty good at it re the most recent riots. Even the Russians are going back to typewriters and paper to improve the secrecy of their sensitive info.

Quote from: Hartlepudlion on August 25, 2013, 03: PM
Yes Fred I think it is a good idea to respond to the invitation to take part in the parade. They could unveil their banners, chant etc once the parade has started. Or they could line the route with their demands for resignation etc? Silent protest at the church as the consort and guests enter the church? All is possible and I am sure that many other citizens will join them in their protest. The only problem is organisation and the fact that the mob read this site. Other methods of communication need to be used other than this site. Perhaps the younger generation can come up with something. They were pretty good at it re the most recent riots. Even the Russians are going back to typewriters and paper to improve the secrecy of their sensitive info.

543 people have signed the Hart / Clavering / Bishop Cuthbert Petition so far.................If only 50% of those people turned up to the "Trumpton Charade" it would certainly Boost the Turn Out.

Lets face it, it should be people from all over the town & not just be the residents of Hart / Clavering / Bishop Cuthbert that gather to make known their feeling at how decisions are arrived at by "The Mob".

As for organisation ???? how much of that is required, It is just a matter of people turning up in response to The Mayors very kind Invitation to attend his Parade, because as "The Dear Leader" has stated.........

"Ste Everyone Loves Him As The Ceremonial Mayor" what better time to show him what the Council Tax Payers think.

Also signed. Fight the good fight!

Have signed this too, but I think the point will be more visibly made if people turn up at the Trumpton Civic Parade next Sunday complete with appropriate banners - several Mail pictures in the making, I think.

It seems to me that every decision made by this council, be it an important one or a minor one, is first subject to the party consequences test and if there are any possible adverse consequences for the labour group, the decison is modified accordingly. This is not the way things are supposed to be done especially when a decision can only be fairly arrived at if assessed impartially.

The decision to locate the Traveller Site at Hart could well be the worst example of this but there have been many others; the disgraceful reluctance to carry out a serious examination of how Manor Residents was being run springs to mind. Too many consequences.

This council is well and truly off the rails of competence.

I note 543 people from the hart ward have signed the petition to reject the proposed gypsy site, i for one am fully on their side but wouldn`t it have been so much easier if the 543 people voted on May 3rd 2012 for a UKIP councillor UKIP`s manifesto states that UKIP will stop the preferential treatment given by council`s to travellers, again it is also followed up in the same Manifesto that all UKIP councillors are committed to follow the voice of their ward residents and you said NO, as it is you have elected 2 Labour councillors and one independant who had defected from the Labour party. There was a low turnout in 2012 and also in Manor ward this year, people just don`t take local politics as seriously as they should,hopefully that might change in 2014 

Quote from: beanzontoast on August 26, 2013, 01: PM
I note 543 people from the hart ward have signed the petition to reject the proposed gypsy site, i for one am fully on their side but wouldn`t it have been so much easier if the 543 people voted on May 3rd 2012 for a UKIP councillor UKIP`s manifesto states that UKIP will stop the preferential treatment given by council`s to travellers, again it is also followed up in the same Manifesto that all UKIP councillors are committed to follow the voice of their ward residents and you said NO, as it is you have elected 2 Labour councillors and one independant who had defected from the Labour party. There was a low turnout in 2012 and also in Manor ward this year, people just don`t take local politics as seriously as they should,hopefully that might change in 2014

I fail to see how voting UKIP at the last election would have changed a thing; far better to participate in a little direct action.

A really good response from Hartlepool Residents, now if only half of the 602, decide to spend an Hour or so of their Sunday Morning attending the Mayors Parade ( It would be Rude Not To, After All He has Invited Residents of Hartlepool ) it would certainly show "Ste" what we all think of His 1st Year as Ceremonial Mayor of Hartlepool.

We all know how "The Dear Leader & His Concert" like to see "Flags & Banners Waving" so we shouldn`t really Disappoint our "Civic Leaders" ???

beanzontoast,it's already been mentioned on this site that this is a EU directive so how could UKIP ignore or change it?.This just shows that the UKIP manifesto was written by Hans Christian Anderson.

   After reading the letter from John RINGWOOD in the Mail tonight a thought crossed my mind regarding the proposed site (s) . I accept that at this late stage I may be barking up the wrong tree but is eveybody satisfied that HBC actually own the land in question?   After all they attempted to propose a site on Wiltshire Way which was not theirs.   As I stated, in an earlier post , I formerly lived in the village opposite the Raby Arms in a house build by Wimpeys on land purchased from a local farmer. I seem to remember there was "deeds of covenant" restricting what could and could not be done with the land.  It would be interesting to know if the Council DO own the land and if any similar conditions apply Also  how long have they owned it and from whom  it was purchased.   Sorry if this has been previously covered.

Quote from: notenoughsaid on August 26, 2013, 06: PM
   After reading the letter from John RINGWOOD in the Mail tonight a thought crossed my mind regarding the proposed site (s) . I accept that at this late stage I may be barking up the wrong tree but is eveybody satisfied that HBC actually own the land in question?   After all they attempted to propose a site on Wiltshire Way which was not theirs.   As I stated, in an earlier post , I formerly lived in the village opposite the Raby Arms in a house build by Wimpeys on land purchased from a local farmer. I seem to remember there was "deeds of covenant" restricting what could and could not be done with the land.  It would be interesting to know if the Council DO own the land and if any similar conditions apply Also  how long have they owned it and from whom  it was purchased.   Sorry if this has been previously covered.

Good Point but have you noticed...........


People have signed the Petition, & if only 50% of those take up "Ste`s" Invitation to his Parade, they could really express their feelings towards him & his fellow Labour chums on how they are running the town.

Take an hour out of your Sunday & Pop Along to the Trumpton Charade, It`s a chance for everyone to see The Mayor in all his Finery.

Ahhhhhhhhhh  " My Ste, Everyone Loves Him As The Ceremonial Mayor"

The newly formed Hart, Bishop Cuthbert and Clavering Residents association has just opened their website. It currently includes the latest news and details on the e-petition along with contact information for those objecting to the decision to locate the permanent travellers sites at Hart.

Site links and contact information below.

http://hbcresidents.co.uk/

info@hbcresidents.co.uk

Notenoughsaid I have already told the people of Hart to check the ownership and covenants that may be placed on the land. Quite often land that has been given to the people of x have covenants placed on that gift  that relate to a specific use for the land eg a play area for the children of the village. All to often Councils take over the custody of the land, usually from Parish Councils or a trust that has become dormant. Once they have control they try and get these covenants removed so that they can control the use of the land. Everyone needs to be vigilant and stop this takeover. Unfortunately, apathy rules and Councils sneak this land grab through, at the best, by dodgy motions passed in the Council Chamber. People need to wake up and monitor their council more.

Having lived in different parts of the country during my life, I have to say that you in the NE appear to take the least interest in your Councils machinations. You can make a difference. Don't trust your Cllrs and watch them like a hawk.

   Thanks Hartlepudlion for your swift reply....I would hate to think we had missed the obvious. Well done pointing out the above to the residents etc. Lets hope in an agricultural setting they reap some benefit from it.   Fingers crossed. Regards.

Beck is in today's Mail offering his excuses for why he didn't support the call-in move and gives us this quote:

"If I had signed the call in decision it would not have made any difference whatsoever as the support would not have been there from the majority of councillors."

Councillors were asked to show their support for the call-in by e-mailing Chief Solicitor, Peter Devlin. Individually, they would not know how many other councillors would be supporting the move ........ unless they asked around first. In Councillor Beck's case, he even says that he knew before hand that it wouldn't have the support of the majority of Councillor's.

How did he know this? ............ obviously because he had checked beforehand if his party, Labour, would be supporting the move......and he towed the line accordingly.

You're dead meat, Mr Beck.

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/councillor-hits-back-over-gypsy-decision-1-5985479 (http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/councillor-hits-back-over-gypsy-decision-1-5985479)

 

To miss one opportunity may be regarded as a misfortune; to miss two amounts to more than carelessness. Bye bye Beck.

"It may be a fight in vain on this matter, but you can rest assured there will be real opposition, and not the 'powder puff' superficial, and in truth, phoney charade that we've seen so far."

What exactly do you mean by that? Sounds like an insult to those trying to do something about this decision, to me.

Quote from: St Paul on August 27, 2013, 01: PM

What exactly do you mean by that? Sounds like an insult to those trying to do something about this decision, to me.

The poster is harking back to his NS days when direct (and violent) action was the norm.

I suspect kipper dip that HBC are not telling the whole truth. We had a similar problem down south when the Council wanted to take the stewardship of the play meadow away from the Parish Council. We fought them and won the battle of the covenants. As I remember, it all hinged on the ownership/stewardship of the land as they are the ones that can relax the covenants. This is why so much common land has disappeared - by hook or by crook the Councils took over and some time later ditched the covenants and changed the use.

If the land ownership/stewardship is the least bit in doubt I suggest that Hart residents find out about any covenants and fight to keep them

Councils all over the country have been using the stewardship argument to take over gifted and common land. They haven't always been successful so people need to be vigilant particularly in the rural environment. It is a bit more difficult in an urban environment as not so much gifting went on e.g. Anybody know how Ward Jackson Park came about?

Pensionater, UKIP Manifesto written by H. Christion Andersen,  no I don't seem to have seen that name on it, however there were several points to my post of course it was braught in by the EU UKIP want to come out of the EU they are the only party that does , Labour signed the directive off when you think about it Labour were always going to put the gypsy site at hart village they knew they would lose votes if they put it anywhere else its not rocket science and by Hart voting in 2 Labour councillors it like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse Beck and sidekick voted at the call in exactly to their type it is a little elementary really , and my point in voting for the UKIP candidate was that in May last year because of the boundry changes all 33 council seats were to be voted for  if each ward returned 1 and in Harts position the gypsy camp would not have happened the torys in the call in did not vote for it either and yet in 2014 there will be a Tory and Labour standing as there will be a UKIP candidate its a no brainer really but its a voters choice after all.

People are putting up a hell of a fight to keep the gypsy camp out of Hart,they should be putting up a hell of a fight to keep it out of Hartlepool,full stop.

When I first saw this photo I thought to myself the little woman fella will not be happy to see someone is treating 'my Stephen, they all love him' like that even in jest.
Revenge  was just around the corner.................


(http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3801/sfoe.jpg) (http://img138.imageshack.us/i/sfoe.jpg/)


I think the attempt to drag a dead relative in as an excuse shows how low the man has sunk.

Only one word to describe the behaviour of Beck & Robinson..... Pathetic.

We have had 2 examples of the cowardice shown by Beck, resignation from MRA & Not Emailing to support the Call In motion.

I certainly wouldn`t want to "Go Over The Top" with him.......... as for Coo Coo Caa Choo Mrs Robinson...... she might as well start Knitting Cardie`s .

Neither of them will be doing much Councilloring in Hart from now on..... Mind you it will be fun to watch any attempt by them to attend Village Meetings.

Signed a petition on Monday...thank you to the guy taking time out from his bank holiday day off to go round the doors!

  Beck in The Hartlepool Mail tonight sees his job rapidly disappearing  and resorts to Plan B. He must think the residents are stupid.

The people as you say are putting up a really good fight Pensionater and your comment regarding the gypsy site should not be in hartlepool at all is something I am in agreement with as does UKIP again its in their manifesto every UKIP councillor is guaranteed to champion the peoples voice and as far as the gypsy site is concerned  you all said NO and no should mean no  and have no doubt with UKIP being a national party behind you they may not get their hands on the leavers of power but they can bounce government  into changing legislation they have already done this with bouncing Cameron to give a referendum on the EU  ok in 2017 but he did NOT want to do it . This is why I have said before a vote for PHF is a wasted vote not because they are not decent people they are however they have as much chance of removing the gypsy site from Hartlepool as King Canute did of turning the tide .

On a point of history.

King Canute never believed that he could turn back the tide; quite the opposite. He was so popular as a King that the people considered him to be capable of achieving anything, almost God like.

Canute was so worried that God might take offence at the comparison that he organised a demonstration of his fallibility by sitting in a chair, facing the in-coming tide and ordering the sea to roll back - it didn't; thus demonstrating to the people that he was just a man like everyone else.

Such a level of popularity or of perceived infallibility is not something UKIP need to worry about right now and, by the way, he was Danish. If it had been down to 11th Century UKIPPERS, he would never have gotten into England in the first place.

Quote from: kipperdip on August 29, 2013, 09: AM
Steve L, I can only remark that I thought you were capable of more intelligent comment.
What a silly, juvenile and puerile jibe at UKIP.

It was a joke and  rather a fitting one at that. Your lucky I did not comment on the Canute reference because I would have made more of the connection between certain UKIP stalwarts and the proper spelling of this King's name -CNUT

Thanks for the history lesson SteveL however i believe all who read my post, did understand what was meant by the king canute piece and that includes yourself, it therefore makes me wonder why you didn`t comment on the rest of the post hit a nerve have we.

. . . and which nerve would that be? I stopped taking UKIP seriously a long time ago when I came across an article on OCD.

SteveL not to take seriously UKIP as the 3rd most popular national political party with  an increasing membership  nationally  while labour  the conservatives and the lib dems are losing members in fact today if you total all members from all 3 party's mentioned there are more members of the Caravan club my point being popular opinion would suggest thousands of people are taking UKIP most seriously including the coalition government. I cant imagine why you think you or PHF are taken seriously  I for one would like to know when the Labour controlled council will let PHF decide where the next donated park bench is to be sited .

Serious issues such as MRA and  Hart Village Travellers' site are eventually taken over by political point scoring between UKIP and PHF to the loss of the original argument.

I couldn't have put it better myself kipperdip and to add to your post that is why a vote for PHF is a wasted vote the torys vote with labour at HBC they certainly did regarding the Gypsy site at Hart, and don't forget the site manager they are going to appoint, this will probably be a new post, salary undisclosed. It would seem self evident that with only 5 PHF ofagainst the rest and the whole Labour party machine  an uphill struggle I think. The way forward for PHF is to stop trying to get more councillors open a dialogue with UKIP who have the national party they need and thats not only smart it's the only way to loosen the grip of the Labour control of the council.

Erm, within HBC PHF have five councillors - exactly how many representatives do UKIP field in the chamber?

I understand your point Lucy  but you missed mine, the tory party joined force's with the Lib Dems in 2010 and formed the goverment we have today, my point is PHF might have 5 UKIP 0 at present and only in Hartlepool UKIP have councillors all over the country and morewill come PHF Need a national identity or do you like PHF think the bedroom tax is only in Hartlepool. UKIP bounced Cameron to give the people a referendum on the EU yes I know its in 2017 the fact is hedid not want to do it, do you think if PHF get another 5 councillors they are going to have the same effect as UKIP. Again my last post has within it a solution to loosen the grip of Labour in Hartlepool and it would seem that is what many people on this forum are asking for or am I mistaken.

Maybe 'national' isn't better than 'local' - one analogy could be that 'Betty's' tea rooms would be better off if they joined forces with Greggs!  ;)

KD you are obsessed.
OK if it makes you happy, everyone acknowledges that the source of this legislation is Europe.
Now what exactly are you suggesting - that everyone in Hart/Clavering and Bishop Cuthbert lobbys Brussels? Or should they focus on the fact that the least suitable sites have been chosen by Labour for purely for their own political reasons and that there are other sites which match the selection criteria the council were supposed to be using much more closely - a point which is far more likely to achieve the desired result in the time available than lobbying Brussels.

I hadn't thought of it quite like that  Tea and Pasties,  but yes that was the idea PHF can still be PHF and both party's work together for a common purpose towards a common goal I feel it would solve the problem of Labour dominance in Hartlepool.

In view of the fact Hart Ward will alwys be targeted and get a raw deal from the Labour controlled council and in reference to the gypsy site planned there, my suggestion to residents is to send a copy of their petition to Eric Pickles with a covering letter explaining that that the ward has traditionally returned tory councillors but in this instance the ward is no longer disposed to do this we are most seriously persue UKIP or PHF as our prefered representatives, this is where I take a little artistic licence who do you think Eric Pickles will sit up and listen a mention for UKIP or PHF its a no brainer really but then Hartlepool is not noted for its politics. Having sent the petition to the said Pickles Hart residents should apply for a Judicial review this will in essence stop the site in its tracks, time is off the essence here as Judicial review s are for the chop.

This thread needs a boost lest we forget...meeting a  week tomorrow.