Council releases new list of potential Newport Gipsy sites (From South Wales Argus)
Get involved: Send your photos, video, news & views by texting ARGUS NEWS to 80360 or email
us
Council releases new list of potential Newport Gipsy sites – and old proposals aren’t on it
9:30am Friday 7th September 2012 in Gwent news
By Ruth Mansfield
PROTEST MARCH: Previous proposals for a Gipsy site at Bettws prompted an angry reaction from residents
NEWPORT council has released a new list of 11 potential sites for Gipsy and traveller families.
Following the council’s decision in June to scrap a previous controversial shortlist of potential sites and go back to the drawing board, the new list has now been drawn up for consultation.
New potential sites include a former chicken processing plant at Castleton and the former Ringland allotments.
But sites which were previously named as potential locations, including Yew Tree Cottages at Bettws which was the subject of a protest march, are no longer on the list.
A council spokeswoman emphasised that no decisions have been made at this stage and a final list of proposed sites will be drawn up following the consultation on October 4.
Both residential and transit sites must be identified by the council in its local development plan.
A shortlist of sites which included Yew Tree Cottages at Bettws and Queensway Meadows was scrapped by the council in June, as it made the decision to go back to the drawing board and reviewa long list of potential sites.
A cross-party project team was set up in June which invited members of the public to suggest sites. A total of 33 responses were received and the suggestions were included in a list of more than 220 locations.
The sites were examined against a list of criteria and other locations were also visited by the party before the list of 11 was drawn up.
The council will consider comments when it prepares a final public report and a recommended shortlist for the scrutiny committee.
If the committee and cabinet accept the proposals, further investigations would be carried out before the sites could be developed.
Members of the public will also have the opportunity to make further comments in the future.
Further information on all 220 sites is available at newport.gov.uk and comments on the sites can be sent to scrutiny@newport.gov.uk or by post to Gipsy and traveller site review, Overview and scrutiny unit, Newport city council, Civic Centre, Newport, NP20 4UR.
Locations now under consideration
● Land at Brickyard Lane (residential only);
● Former Allt-yr-yn brickworks (residential only);
● Yard adjacent to the A449 (transit only);
● Land to the west of Llanmartin Primary School (residential only);
● Former Langstone Nursery, Magor Road (residential only);
● Land to the south of Langstone Cottage, Old Chepstow Road (residential only);
● Former Ringland allotments (residential or transit);
● Former road safety centre and surrounding land, Hartridge Farm Road (residential only);
● Former speedway site, Plover Close (transit only);
● Former chicken processing plant, Castleton (residential only);
● Land at Celtic Way, Marshfield (transit only).
The five previous potential sites were:
● Yew Tree Cottages, Bettws;
● Queensway Meadows;
● Two former Army sites at Pye Corner, Nash;
● Pound Hill, Coedkernew.
Comments(68)
DaisysPetShop
says...
11:59am Fri 7 Sep 12
its "Gypsy"
goodness knows what a Gipsy is!
Amberboy
says...
12:57pm Fri 7 Sep 12
chris warman
says...
1:08pm Fri 7 Sep 12
its been difficult at times reading threw hundreds of pages of planning policy to get our argument across but always had faith that we could identify the specific policy's that would stop the sites form being reconsidered and built.
again well done to all that took part
welshmen
says...
1:12pm Fri 7 Sep 12
Howie'
says...
1:32pm Fri 7 Sep 12
Amberboy wrote:Why should the Council be ashamed?, seems to me that they listened to people's views on the first sites and they are no longer on the list. They seem to have reached cross party consensus and are making it easy for the public to be involved in the process, what else could they have done? All Unitary Councils in England and Wales are obliged by UK legislation to set up residential and transit sites for Gipsy's/travelers.
This council should be ashamed
alwaytom
says...
2:09pm Fri 7 Sep 12
james jackson
says...
2:11pm Fri 7 Sep 12
Labour has not consulted here at all. They've given in to the views of the mob
These are the people who were dragged out to vote in Lliswerry and Pill in the May elections, without realising that they were actually voting for fake Tories.
Many of this Labour lot promised their cronies that if they won last May, gypsy sites would disappear from Labour areas and be placed in Conservative areas. Hey presto! That's what happened.
There has been no open consultation here. If there were, Hartridge Farm Road wouldn't appear on the list as it's land that is being sold for housing - to fund the new Llanwern High School. O, what an inconvenience.
PS: Gipsy spelt that way is "house style" for the South Wales Argus. It can actually be spelt either way.
Amberboy
says...
2:34pm Fri 7 Sep 12
Howie'
says...
4:21pm Fri 7 Sep 12
Amberboy wrote:That's the point though Amberboy, the people may or may not agree with these sites being built in their area and it is not unique to Newport, if you google you will find stories of protests, legal battles and judicial reviews taking place across England and Wales but the Local Authority's are legally bound to identify Gypsy/ Travelers needs in regard to sites.
Yes Howie - But do the people of Newport really want these sites? I'm not an expert on the matter, but Caerphilly council have not drawn up any plans and are refusing to even discuss it. Why can't we do the same.
It is not that Caerphilly Council have refused to discuss it, there is a lot regarding Gypsy's and their needs on their website, the reason that there are zero sites in Caerphilly and Monmouthshire is quite simple...they have very few Gypsy's.
www.cardiff.gov.uk/O
bjView.asp?Object_ID
=19950
Attached at Appendix B, shows that two out
of nine of Cardiff’s neighbouring local authorities in South East Wales have
reported a zero need: Caerphilly and Monmouthshire.
Welshman76
says...
4:43pm Fri 7 Sep 12
james jackson
says...
5:00pm Fri 7 Sep 12
People were generally against gypsy sites and there were protests about mess and litter and anti-social behaviour.
But once the council bit the bullet and provided both a transit site and a permanent site, problems disappeared and the costs to Bristol council taxpayers fell enormously.
Gypsy and traveller families are happy to pay their way and this has proved to be the case in Bristol, where the sites are strictly monitored.
Newport should try to be a little more progressive and do the right thing for once. People may find that gypsies are, after all, people just like themselves, but with a different lifestyle..Come on Newport Council, leave your phony Labour credentials in the 20th century and move with the times!
james jackson
says...
5:00pm Fri 7 Sep 12
People were generally against gypsy sites and there were protests about mess and litter and anti-social behaviour.
But once the council bit the bullet and provided both a transit site and a permanent site, problems disappeared and the costs to Bristol council taxpayers fell enormously.
Gypsy and traveller families are happy to pay their way and this has proved to be the case in Bristol, where the sites are strictly monitored.
Newport should try to be a little more progressive and do the right thing for once. People may find that gypsies are, after all, people just like themselves, but with a different lifestyle..Come on Newport Council, leave your phony Labour credentials in the 20th century and move with the times!
james.dyer7@ntlworld.com
says...
5:14pm Fri 7 Sep 12
Welshman76
says...
5:32pm Fri 7 Sep 12
james.dyer7@ntlworldso you would get rid of them all even the proper ones that deserve some credit? How many 'Newport' ones do you personally know?
.com wrote:
Yes , I know all about Bristol and the proper gypsies deserve some merit. However the majority in Newpoirt are not and that is the problem. For example, France had the right idea recently in getting rid of the Romas there. In any case no-one is ever going to be happy with them in their area and given the 'traveller' element who don't want to travel, i don't blame them!
james.dyer7@ntlworld.com
says...
5:47pm Fri 7 Sep 12
james jackson
says...
8:13pm Fri 7 Sep 12
It smacks of Nazi Germany's purges in the 1930s and is, of course, a form of ethnic cleansing.
It appears to be the case that people are allowed to be as racist as they like towards this minority. If it's OK to persecute gypsies, then it could be OK to persecute other groups in society, just as Hitler did.
"First, they came for the communists, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist..."
chris227
says...
9:04pm Fri 7 Sep 12
But i hope the residents of the proposed areas demonstrate and lobby their mp. A gypsy site was put in near my friends house in gloucester all the houses in the area became worthless quad bikes were raced up and down all night and (i can vouch for this) rubbish was thrown all around the neighbourhood. The council can pay a fine if they do not house these scum.
Welshman76
says...
9:24pm Fri 7 Sep 12
james.dyer7@ntlworldmy point is you implied in yr post that France had the right idea in getting rid of the gypsies which in my eyes means that you are in agreement with this policy. In relation to my question you compare Newport gypsies to Bristol gypsies who are 'decent' and I was just wondering what your foundation for this piece of information you share!
.com wrote:
Welshman - i never said that. In fact i said PROPER gypsies desrve some help. I know many people of many nationalities all over the world. What is the relevace of your question Welshman?
digispamman
says...
10:38pm Fri 7 Sep 12
safe to go out after dark, less crime, less dog **** on the pavements, people taking a pride in the area in which they live,,,,,,,, the possibilities are endless!
chris warman
says...
11:21pm Fri 7 Sep 12
for the record the objections raised were the same if it was a holiday company that wanted to build a holiday park on the same site,it was never ever about who the site was for.
julie the bitch
says...
12:11am Sat 8 Sep 12
chris warman wrote:let them live where they want it can,t get any worse than it is
well as one of the campaign team all i can say is well done to all for all the support and backing.
its been difficult at times reading threw hundreds of pages of planning policy to get our argument across but always had faith that we could identify the specific policy's that would stop the sites form being reconsidered and built.
again well done to all that took part
james.dyer7@ntlworld.com
says...
1:39am Sat 8 Sep 12
angry12
says...
2:48am Sat 8 Sep 12
g Council Tax, Water Rates, TV Licence! Being one half of a young couple who have struggled to own a home, pay our bills on time of which I think we speak for a great percentage of the population. These people continue to be given handouts and are accomodated???
jups
says...
9:28am Sat 8 Sep 12
Some of these travellers are travelling around our country (some of the Irish ones ) only because they are not allowed to travel in their own countries ! so why should they travel in ours !
Carrot's
says...
9:41am Sat 8 Sep 12
Given the choice between going into a traveller community and going into Ringland (I did both as a deliver driver) - I have to say I only got stones thrown at my van in one of those places - Ringland.
Welshman76
says...
9:43am Sat 8 Sep 12
james.dyer7@ntlworldRead the first 2 sentences from yr first post and it is clear you are making a comparison! Unless what you wrote isn't as clear as what you were thinking at the time, if this is the case you need to be clearer in your wording when you post.
.com wrote:
welshman - Still don't understand the relevance oif your question. Neither did i/do i compare Bristol; gypsies with Newport ones. There is a great difference between Proper gypsies and tinkers and travellers. Whichever way you look at it the later are scrounging, waste of space.They don't deserve special treatment and are not an identifiable ethnic group. As for the French and the Romas there all i can say is that they were from Romania, and to me that's where they belong. This country is being swamped by immigrants and it should be stopped, gypsies or not.
james.dyer7@ntlworld.com
says...
9:47am Sat 8 Sep 12
Welshman76
says...
9:47am Sat 8 Sep 12
chris warman wrote:From the basis of your opposition to the site in your location, it looks like a few sites mentioned above will also be inappropriate for the same reasons.
just to put this in to some context we the people of bettws were not a mob nor did we discriminate. the site the council wished to used was unsuitable due to its location and previous history.also it was against the planning guidelines for such sites as road infrastructure was very poor. a lot of time and effort went in to identifying the correct planning policy's to make our objection we were never told which policy's were being used incorrectly we had to research this ourselves.
for the record the objections raised were the same if it was a holiday company that wanted to build a holiday park on the same site,it was never ever about who the site was for.
Welshman76
says...
10:08am Sat 8 Sep 12
james.dyer7@ntlworldYour first sentences are clearly comparative. You know all about Bristol gypsies and proper gypsies deserve merit but Newport ones are not!! If that's not a comparison then the definition has changed and I wasnt aware it had. So going back to my original question, how many of them do you personally know to conclude whether they are decent gypsies or not? Or are your opinions founded on rumour, 2nd hand articles and information or have you actively engaged with them?
.com wrote:
Yes , I know all about Bristol and the proper gypsies deserve some merit. However the majority in Newpoirt are not and that is the problem. For example, France had the right idea recently in getting rid of the Romas there. In any case no-one is ever going to be happy with them in their area and given the 'traveller' element who don't want to travel, i don't blame them!
james.dyer7@ntlworld.com
says...
10:18am Sat 8 Sep 12
Again. I repeat my sentence about Bristol; is separate from Newport and AGAIN does not compare the two. The second sentence refers to proper gypsies NOt Bristol.
Lets get some common sense ghere. Are you a gypsy or some sort of jobsworth for them? I think we should be told.
james.dyer7@ntlworld.com
says...
10:21am Sat 8 Sep 12
pinpong
says...
10:44am Sat 8 Sep 12
Dont be fooled the councillors are more concerned with getting elected than they are with dealing with issues. PUT PRESSURE ON THEM. Remind the labour ones what happened in Bettws. Two independents got elected and labours hold on Bettws was pushed aside something that i thought i would never see.
Welshman76
says...
11:25am Sat 8 Sep 12
At the start of your 2nd sentence you use the word 'however' which is a synonym for 'but'. In its use in your writing it serves as a tool to compare your opening sentence to your second one where your first sentence mentions Bristol and proper gypsies and your second Newport.
I made no assumptions and sought clarity with the questions that I asked. I also stated that I would be opposed to living near a possible site but at the same time understand that all are not as bad as we all think.
james.dyer7@ntlworld.com
says...
11:33am Sat 8 Sep 12
As for scrap collection. there are dozens who whizz around the streets here.
Howie'
says...
12:11pm Sat 8 Sep 12
pinpong wrote:It does not matter one jot the political colour of the Council, they are required by legislation from the UK Government to identify and provide sites for Gypsy's. You can vote this lot out but if they refuse to go through this process they will be removed by the Welsh Government for not carrying out their duties, they really have no choice.
Everyone should lobby their councillors and tell them that we dont want gypsy sites anywhere in Newport. The councillors must be told to vote against and if they dont then we can vote against them next time.
Dont be fooled the councillors are more concerned with getting elected than they are with dealing with issues. PUT PRESSURE ON THEM. Remind the labour ones what happened in Bettws. Two independents got elected and labours hold on Bettws was pushed aside something that i thought i would never see.
james.dyer7@ntlworld.com
says...
12:18pm Sat 8 Sep 12
merlin the silure
says...
12:31pm Sat 8 Sep 12
digispamman wrote:great idea digi !! chav camps-I'm all for that-put them all on Flat Holm or Steep Holm ,remove any boats and let them all get on with it-perfect!!
why not build chav camps? we could house half of newport in them. imagine how much nicer the council/social housing estates could be if we did this!
safe to go out after dark, less crime, less dog **** on the pavements, people taking a pride in the area in which they live,,,,,,,, the possibilities are endless!
Howie'
says...
2:42pm Sat 8 Sep 12
james.dyer7@ntlworldJames, if you read the link that I posted in reply to 'Amberboy' it shows what Cardiff have done to identify and assess the needs of the traveling community so I can only assume that Newport have done the same, after all whats the point of looking for sites if you don't know the size of the problem.
.com wrote:
howie - not that simple i am afraid. I think the real problem in Newport should be identified first. Ie how mant, where and REAL gypsies. This info is probably available but i haven't seen it. A big problem but for the life of me i cannot see how Monmouthshire and caerphilly haven;'t a need.
I was surprised as well reading that Caerphilly and Monmouthshire don't need sites but reading the Caerphilly Council website they say this:
Housing
Under the Housing Act 2004 local authorities have a duty to provide appropriate accommodation for Gypsy and Travellers. This duty means that authorities must assess the accommodation needs of Gypsy and Travellers and include a strategy to meet those needs within their wider housing strategies.
As they do not have any sites then I guess they must put them in Social Housing, I'm not sure on that though.
james.dyer7@ntlworld.com
says...
2:46pm Sat 8 Sep 12
Woodgnome
says...
6:30pm Sat 8 Sep 12
It's a pity Newport Council doesn't expend such time and resources raising the quality of lives f Newport residents instead of damaging it.
james.dyer7@ntlworld.com
says...
6:44pm Sat 8 Sep 12
Woodgnome
says...
9:20am Sun 9 Sep 12
.
Howie'
says...
10:10am Sun 9 Sep 12
Woodgnome wrote:How are they damaging it?
The quality of comments on this topic leaves a lot to be desired.
It's a pity Newport Council doesn't expend such time and resources raising the quality of lives f Newport residents instead of damaging it.
Woodgnome
says...
10:22am Sun 9 Sep 12
It might be more valuable if contributors confined their remarks simply to weather they support or oppose any sites in Newport. I oppose.
I have now said all I have to say on the matter.
james.dyer7@ntlworld.com
says...
10:25am Sun 9 Sep 12
chris warman
says...
12:46pm Sun 9 Sep 12
Welshman76 wrote:And if they are i hope the residents of the said areas do there homework, to
chris warman wrote:From the basis of your opposition to the site in your location, it looks like a few sites mentioned above will also be inappropriate for the same reasons.
just to put this in to some context we the people of bettws were not a mob nor did we discriminate. the site the council wished to used was unsuitable due to its location and previous history.also it was against the planning guidelines for such sites as road infrastructure was very poor. a lot of time and effort went in to identifying the correct planning policy's to make our objection we were never told which policy's were being used incorrectly we had to research this ourselves.
for the record the objections raised were the same if it was a holiday company that wanted to build a holiday park on the same site,it was never ever about who the site was for.
identify such planning policies that they are able to form a legal argument as to why such development should NOT go ahead.
some of the arguments used here are just not viable to use in a refusal of planning.
lowandhardandinthecorner
says...
12:56pm Sun 9 Sep 12
That is seemingly , " Travellers " simply refuse to travel and therefore need a local site on which to settle. Now maybe I'm being a little naive here but when I decided to live in any location either I had to rent or buy a property as I did in Newport and pay my rates/council tax.
Having seen some of these encampments, I can well understand the local residents' reluctance to have them as neighbours so I think it's silly to criticise residents' reactions as " racist " etc. I'm sure their reaction would be the same if the planning application was for a rubbish dump to be located near to their houses.
james jackson
says...
1:44pm Sun 9 Sep 12
No-one wants a rubbish dump near them; nor do they want take-aways; noisy nightclubs or gypsies.
We live in a small and overcrowded island and there will always be somebody who is unhappy.
In the case of these new sites - I'm told that some of them were rejected as unsuitable by the last council, but the significant thing here is that all but one of the sites are in Tory areas.
Last time, I'm also told, the Tories ruled out several sites in their own areas and the shortlist of sites was mainly in Labour areas.
This is the face of Newport's ping-pong politics.
The two parties loathe each other, but are in fact, good pals.
It's all histrionics. Labour has a God-given right to run Newport (into the ground!) and the Tories know they can never win control. Therefore, a happy status quo for all concerned, but absolutely catastrophic for the general population. One could ask the present council what is happening to the city centre redevelopment. This is much more important than potential gypsy sites. A lot of noise was made about getting this development off the ground, so where is it?
Magor
says...
2:20pm Sun 9 Sep 12
mark118
says...
6:14pm Sun 9 Sep 12
Cymru Am Beth
says...
1:14pm Mon 10 Sep 12
lowandhardandinthecoTotally agree.
rner wrote:
I'm sure that the these groups of people contain good as well as bad people just like the rest of us, the only thing I've got against them is that they don't do " what it says on the tin". That is seemingly , " Travellers " simply refuse to travel and therefore need a local site on which to settle. Now maybe I'm being a little naive here but when I decided to live in any location either I had to rent or buy a property as I did in Newport and pay my rates/council tax. Having seen some of these encampments, I can well understand the local residents' reluctance to have them as neighbours so I think it's silly to criticise residents' reactions as " racist " etc. I'm sure their reaction would be the same if the planning application was for a rubbish dump to be located near to their houses.
Unfortunately, there are not many 'real' gypsies around these days, most of them are Irish Tinkers.
Many do not pay any tax, dealing mostly in cash. They leave piles of rubbish on their encampments, which has to be cleared away by the local authority using taxpayers money.
Within the vicinity of these sites, things start to go missing all of a sudden, etc, etc.
I could go on.
Therefore, I also understand the local rsidents' reluctance to accept these sites on their doorstep.
Euwan Usami
says...
2:11pm Mon 10 Sep 12
Magor wrote:I work very close to the site you mention. Police recently moved on a group of travellers from a road less than a mile from the site. There then followed the army of cleaners required to remove all their mess left behind. They could dump this stuff but they would have to pay to do that. The Very idea of "Tavelling" is to avoid paying thier way after all. They have relocated now on a field a mile or two up the road. (Not in the site either in case you wondered). The cycle will continue until we get tough on the ones that don't use the designated sites.
There is an official site in Avonmouth which is hardly used,so why would one be used in Newport? I expect because they have to pay.
Cymru Am Beth
says...
4:44pm Mon 10 Sep 12
Magor wrote:Yes.
There is an official site in Avonmouth which is hardly used,so why would one be used in Newport? I expect because they have to pay.
They don't like to pay for anything.
I remember when the Tinkers were evicted from land in Newport sometime ago.
The comments that were posted by them at the time, came via a hijacked wireless connection.
This was admitted by one of them who launched a tirade of abuse against Newport people.
no justice
says...
5:07pm Mon 10 Sep 12
james jackson
says...
5:25pm Mon 10 Sep 12
Simple, maybe. You people on here are making things up as you go. If gypsies were vitriolic about Newport people, what do you think you're being? Nasty, and no idea of what you are talking about.
France does not have the right idea and the next county won't want gypsies either.
Get a grip for heaven's sake, They're PEOPLE. Just like you.
Gypsies (proper ones) are more than happy to pay their way. If they have a site, they will certainly do so because it will be monitored. The ignorance on this board is quite unbelievable. Stop shooting from the hip and do some research.
james.dyer7@ntlworld.com
says...
5:32pm Mon 10 Sep 12
SizzlerTrainers
says...
10:50am Tue 11 Sep 12
Coupled with a huge percentage of fat, Gregg's shareholding, sneering illiterate locals that stagger around, accompanied by "dangerous dogs" that further try to breakdown any feeling of pride for the place.
It all adds up to a wonderful tapestry of human decline and mismanagement by successive councils in ensuring Newport's future is down the drain. It's a hole, with no hope, and no future, apart from an A bomb taking it out.
I love this Town, but if I had the opportunity to press the button, I'd do it in a heartbeat (joke by the way). Some say the streets can be paved with gold, in Newport it's dog mess and syringes.
Euwan Usami
says...
12:36pm Tue 11 Sep 12
james.dyer7@ntlworldAgree with both Jame's on the ignorance side of the argument. I include myself in the ignorant majority of "Real gypsies". I really don't know what that term implies. My experience of them has been the same as most folks I think; a sudden deluge of vans cars and dogs on a any unused car park/ road siding or field. Followed by a few days/weeks of fly tipping and a large clean up after they finally move on again. I assume the "Real" gypsies are the ones who play by the rules and use designated sites and pay thier way? No-one is criticising these people in my opinion. We need a little change in ledgislation followed by a task force to ensure the "Not real" gypsies are made to tow the line just like everyone else in this country. (Again just my opinion)
.com wrote:
james Jackson - some good points and agree about proper gypsies. And the difference between them and the others is the crux of the problem. However do not mix this up with the mass influx as in France. This is caused by ridiculously stupid EU rules regarding immis.
East Newport Dave
says...
10:02am Wed 12 Sep 12
Euwan Usami
says...
10:19am Wed 12 Sep 12
East Newport Dave wrote:I hear what your saying Dave but the two issues are not connected in fairness. The social system is to blame for the number of wasters in the town. Genrations of chavs that think the world owes them a living. The economic climate explains the run down nature of the city centre. Neither of these issues have anything to do with gypsies. They chose their lifestyle it isnt forced on them. There are provisions made for them. If they decide to trespass and fly tip there way through life then they will get flak for it like you or I would. I am not at all sure what makes them a special case for pity.
Sizzler Trainers has it summed up beautifully. The town (city) is in a terrible mess and it's down to decades of political mismanagement. Dozens of Old F*rts on the council doing nothing more than take the expenses and freebies associated with the post. If you are a decent person, take time to walk through the city centre by day (never mind night) and experience how intimidating it is. Lots of drunks and the pallid faces and dirty appearances of the addicts and no-hopers. The Gypsies are the most racially persecuted group in the world. What makes them any worse than the large proportion of degenerates already populating Newport?
emlynkide
says...
2:27pm Wed 12 Sep 12
james.dyer7@ntlworld.com
says...
4:21pm Wed 12 Sep 12
fudge1969
says...
2:16am Thu 13 Sep 12
james.dyer7@ntlworld.com
says...
3:05am Thu 13 Sep 12
pinpong
says...
11:41am Thu 13 Sep 12
james.dyer7@ntlworldJames. I have said quite a bit about the issue just look at my earlier comments. My apologies if i offended you earlier
.com wrote:
pinpong - wrong on all counts and you still haven't said anything about the issue
james.dyer7@ntlworld.com
says...
11:54am Thu 13 Sep 12
Woodgnome
says...
2:29pm Fri 14 Sep 12
james jackson wrote:If anyone has witnessed any of this Labour lot "promise their cronies that if they won last May, gypsy sites would disappear from Labour areas and be placed in Conservative areas" their identity should be publicly disclosed. If any of them did say that they should be quaking in their boots.
Labour listened to its cronies. As Mr Dyer says, they are all, bar one, in Tory areas.
Labour has not consulted here at all. They've given in to the views of the mob
These are the people who were dragged out to vote in Lliswerry and Pill in the May elections, without realising that they were actually voting for fake Tories.
Many of this Labour lot promised their cronies that if they won last May, gypsy sites would disappear from Labour areas and be placed in Conservative areas. Hey presto! That's what happened.
There has been no open consultation here. If there were, Hartridge Farm Road wouldn't appear on the list as it's land that is being sold for housing - to fund the new Llanwern High School. O, what an inconvenience.
PS: Gipsy spelt that way is "house style" for the South Wales Argus. It can actually be spelt either way.
james.dyer7@ntlworld.com says...
11:00am Fri 7 Sep 12