Newport Gipsy sites consultation raises 40,000 issues (From South Wales Argus)

Presumably we will be told we live in a democracy when the issues are ignored and the sites placed where the councillors decide, (which, to the uninitiated, will be nowhere near where they live).

I am surprised it's only 40,000 issues. as there are 150,00 people in Newport.

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Presumably we will be told we live in a democracy when the issues are ignored and the sites placed where the councillors decide, (which, to the uninitiated, will be nowhere near where they live).

The Councillors won`t be allowed to decide as no Councillors wants the Gypsies in their ward.
This will be a delegated decision i.e. made by UNELECTED civil servants like Mark Hand and a I bet it won`t be anywhere near where the decision makers live.

Democracy...........
.yea ok.
Let us plebs decide and not the unelected up the Civic.

Quite why they refer to them as gypsies I do not know. Almost none of them are true Gypsies.

They are itenerant travellers (Well sort of travellers most do not travel far)

They just no how to milk the system and get special preferential treatment

Intersiting to not you will get a rude letter from Newport Council if you put your bin out on the wrong day or put the wrong think in it threatening you with fines but if you are a gypsy no such worries just chuck your rubbish any way and dont worry about what it is the council will come round to collect it when you move on.

Bobevans wrote:
Quite why they refer to them as gypsies I do not know. Almost none of them are true Gypsies.

They are itenerant travellers (Well sort of travellers most do not travel far)

They just no how to milk the system and get special preferential treatment

Intersiting to not you will get a rude letter from Newport Council if you put your bin out on the wrong day or put the wrong think in it threatening you with fines but if you are a gypsy no such worries just chuck your rubbish any way and dont worry about what it is the council will come round to collect it when you move on.

Those letters are your recognition for your being a tax paying law abiding citizen. You only get anything in this world by being a leech on society.

robertce wrote:
I am surprised it's only 40,000 issues. as there are 150,00 people in Newport.

The council did a very good job of not widely advertising the consultation.....

I submitted comments to the consultation but we are going to raise further objections to the report as we do not feel the council have fully listened to peoples comments.

If you feel strongly about the outcome of the report then you should submit your views to the Council

Regardless the wider issue of long term sites which do need to be addressed, could this new Council stop pretending that this is 'real' consultation and 'real' decision making. It is nothing of the sort. The real motive is that Labour councillors didn't like the list of previous sites and are using their prejudices to draw up an alternative list that suits their own political ends. In addition to the debate about potential sites, there needs to be a wider debate about the way the Council is shamefully handling the matter.

Severn40 wrote:
Regardless the wider issue of long term sites which do need to be addressed, could this new Council stop pretending that this is 'real' consultation and 'real' decision making. It is nothing of the sort. The real motive is that Labour councillors didn't like the list of previous sites and are using their prejudices to draw up an alternative list that suits their own political ends. In addition to the debate about potential sites, there needs to be a wider debate about the way the Council is shamefully handling the matter.

Fully agree Severn40. Most useful comment on the issue for some time

No one seems to be aware that the "former road safety centre" is not a "former" road safety centre at all. It is still in use, delivering much needed road safety education to the young people of Newport.

Where does the Council intend the "former" road safety centre to be situated once they have handed the site over for use as a residential site?

No point moaning wrote:
No one seems to be aware that the "former road safety centre" is not a "former" road safety centre at all. It is still in use, delivering much needed road safety education to the young people of Newport. Where does the Council intend the "former" road safety centre to be situated once they have handed the site over for use as a residential site?

Perhaps the road safety centre will still be their but with added safety obstacles for them to learn about.....wild animals.......unlice
sensed and unisured drivers and vehicles.......rubbi
sh and waste dumps...etc.etc.?

I do agree with you though, it is inteesting that a 'former' anything is considered this when the orignal use is still in operation? The political definitions are always interesting and usually totally off the mark!

Mr_T wrote:

No point moaning wrote:
No one seems to be aware that the "former road safety centre" is not a "former" road safety centre at all. It is still in use, delivering much needed road safety education to the young people of Newport. Where does the Council intend the "former" road safety centre to be situated once they have handed the site over for use as a residential site?

Perhaps the road safety centre will still be their but with added safety obstacles for them to learn about.....wild animals.......unlice

sensed and unisured drivers and vehicles.......rubbi

sh and waste dumps...etc.etc.?

I do agree with you though, it is inteesting that a 'former' anything is considered this when the orignal use is still in operation? The political definitions are always interesting and usually totally off the mark!

All this illustrates is the undue haste with which our Labour leaders tried to get the existing list of five sites changed. They also didn't know about heritage sites at two on the revised list, or flood risks or school places or.... Someone should send Newport CC on holiday and make sure they pack clean underwear and their crayons.

It is a no win situation. There has to be provision made as they will just rock up and park where ever they can and leave a mess when they leave or forced to leave. but on the other hand no one is prepared to have a site near to their properties. The ridiculous would say let's get rid of them full stop and we all know the result of a certain German leader who had ideals such as this. Im glad im not involved in making a decision on this matter because it will inevitably incur the wrath of someone!! Good luck

It's irritating to have submitted a detailed objection (as requested) to NCC concerning the itinerant settlement areas and not even know whether they even received it, let alone actually read it, or if they did read it, whether they paid any attention or just laughed.

I wonder if it still exists or has it conveniently disappeared? It was certainly never acknowledged.

When fundamental points of democracy like this remain unanswered, it encourages one to believe that the only thing the councillors considered was inventing excuses to justify keeping the sites far away from their doorsteps.

Political gerrymandering at its most unpleasant is what occurs to me.

Welshman76 wrote:
It is a no win situation. There has to be provision made as they will just rock up and park where ever they can and leave a mess when they leave or forced to leave. but on the other hand no one is prepared to have a site near to their properties. The ridiculous would say let's get rid of them full stop and we all know the result of a certain German leader who had ideals such as this. Im glad im not involved in making a decision on this matter because it will inevitably incur the wrath of someone!! Good luck

Sorry but that's a total cop-out. The reason it's difficult is because of the planning requirements that WAG have deemed necessary. The gypsies are entitled to be: near bus routes, walking distance to schools, shops, doctors surgery. The are entitled to privacy, away from flood risk and not near access routes to cities or towns. They are also entitled to comment on locality. A quick look at the WAG document means they have to be placed near existing settlements regardless of the damage to YOUR quality of life, house value etc. they have way more rights than you. If they want what we have then get a house.

Llanmartinangel wrote:

Welshman76 wrote:
It is a no win situation. There has to be provision made as they will just rock up and park where ever they can and leave a mess when they leave or forced to leave. but on the other hand no one is prepared to have a site near to their properties. The ridiculous would say let's get rid of them full stop and we all know the result of a certain German leader who had ideals such as this. Im glad im not involved in making a decision on this matter because it will inevitably incur the wrath of someone!! Good luck

Sorry but that's a total cop-out. The reason it's difficult is because of the planning requirements that WAG have deemed necessary. The gypsies are entitled to be: near bus routes, walking distance to schools, shops, doctors surgery. The are entitled to privacy, away from flood risk and not near access routes to cities or towns. They are also entitled to comment on locality. A quick look at the WAG document means they have to be placed near existing settlements regardless of the damage to YOUR quality of life, house value etc. they have way more rights than you. If they want what we have then get a house.

Why is it a cop out? I state clearly provision has to be made and that nobody wants them near where they live. A lesson in inference is clearly needed before you comment and put me down!

I did not mean to put you down and if I came over in that way then I apologise. My 'cop-out' remark refers to rewarding illegal behaviour (pitching up illegally and fly tipping) with better proposals than other citizens would otherwise get. When my 81 yr old mother was trying to get housed, there was no such consideration by the council, of proximity to shops, bus routes, doctors etc. and guess what, she had worked and paid tax until she was 72. Why do gypsies get special rules only applicable to them?

It would be interesting to know if the council have any figures on the number of gypsies or traveler's, that have used the Newport tip, as they record every vehicle and person that use it. At £56.00 per visit I would expect the council to answer either none or they don't know.
The £56.00 per visit is probably the reason so many are fly tipping.
As they are unemployed working for cash in hand they pay no tax, and would therefore not have to pay council tax or site rent, as they would be entitled to housing benefit.