I have difficulty in understanding why there is a need to provide permanent sites with the attendant facilities for washing, showers, electricity, roads etc.

Surely it would be simpler for them to just live in a house. Or are these sites to be used as transit camps where they stay for a short period then move on?

If so are they to be charged rent together with payment for the laid on facilities. Should they decide to stay longer or permanently would they pay council tax? Perhaps the meeting in Bourne on August 14 will address these issues.

As Coun Horn seems to be very keen on having traveller sites locally, can he give an assurance that the already hard-pressed local tax payer is not going to be penalised for something which he appears to be the only one in favour?

Can I suggest that the councillor goes on a fact-finding tour to Cottenham near Cambridge and seeks the views of the local inhabitants on the effects the huge traveller site has had on their lives.

The record with these sites, over the years, has not been good and the inhabitants of Bourne and the nearby towns have every right to be alarmed at the possibility of one or more being located in this area.

A L Stubbs
Saxon Way,
Bourne


I WAS interested in the letter from Mark Horn. He appears to have a very rose-coloured view of the world. He abuses people, who I suspect are fairly ordinary people, for their fears.

We do not imagine the impact of travellers on our communities. The way they treat and leave the areas they visit are there for all to see. No one wishes to interfere with a chosen lifestyle of anyone unless it interferes with their own and costs them money to support.

I have no idea why travellers need permanent sites at all. If they choose to travel around ignoring society in general and its penalties, then we who try, buy houses, pay taxes, pay council tax and obey the law have to pay for all those who will not work.

I was a boy in the 40s and 50s and we had real gipsies camp on our land twice a year. The Romanies were illiterate but very wise and also thieves. We knew this but they were still quite welcome, we kept an eye on our livestock and orchard. The point is these people left the place exactly as they found it and there was only the burnt ring of their fire, to show they had been.

I suspect barrister Mr Horn will not be much affected wherever these sites are located unless he invites these travellers to camp on his land. His wonderful liberal views on life should surely make him think along these lines.

O DICKERSON,
Laburnum Cottage,
Stamford


COUN Horn's letter really was a bit of a self-righteous rant against many of the people who have elected him.

Like too many of our politicians these days, he forgets that he is elected to serve the interests of the electors, not abuse them as 'racist and bigoted' should they happen to express views he disagrees with.

The issue of Government-imposed travellers' sites is both difficult and divisive and many people are rightly concerned that bad experiences at other locations will be repeated in the areas in question.

In what is left of our democracy, they have a perfect right to express their views as they see fit.

Coun Horn says that 'travellers are fellow citizens and deserve respect' but that is a two-way street and travellers need to show respect to the local community and its environment, too.

As is the case so often these days, the 'human rights' of the minority take precedence over those of the law-abiding, tax-paying majority.
Coun Horn, Bourne expects more of you!

David Hearnshaw
Aveland Way,
Aslackby


I'M writing regarding the piece in this week's Mercury, about the council giving the gipsies a piece of land so they can settle there.

Well, I'm disgusted with it. I don't know why they should be allowed to, especially when the council wouldn't give my daughter and her two small children a house to live in.

It just seems so unfair, when she's having to go to work to bring up her two children and trying to pay for her rent and bills. She's had to go and rent a house, which is very expensive, so I think it's not on.

MRS M WALKER
Highland's Way,
Stamford


WITH respect Coun Walden (last week's letters) I truly believe it is time to stop exhorting people to support the council and, in the vernacular, show what you are collectively made of and live up to expectations.

You can start with plans to locate (potentially) a traveller/gipsy site in, or near Stamford.

The council must move to address the genuine concerns of residents and then allay such concerns by showing not all travellers are trouble makers.

By simply pointing out 'decent people' can cause their fair share of havoc as well thus, hopefully, will head off those knee-jerk bigots who will highlight past incidents to push their ignorance and bile.

But keep one thing firmly in mind and, to paraphrase Mr Michael Winner, 'calm down dear, it's only a proposal.' Even if Stamford is picked, all life is not going to end because properly run and administered sites that have featured in media reports are trouble free and clean and seem to co-exist.

But finally, Coun Walden, unfortunately there will always be those who will not be happy with any administration, it's the price of putting your head above the parapet.

Dealing with situations even handedly and listening to all is a good way to reduce any sniping.

MR G SKIPPON
Elizabeth Road,
Stamford

I AM writing regarding the proposed travellers' site in the area. I am an English non-traveller but am engaged to a Romany gipsy lady.

I have been with my partner for three years now and since being with her have learned a lot about travellers and gipsy ways and beliefs and have witnessed first hand the racism and prejudice they suffer.

We attended the Langtoft meeting earlier this month to hear what objections the locals had, but to my disbelief when we got there people were shouting things like "why should their children have an education and get medical treatment", also "send them to North Sea Camp Prison where they belong".

I think people are classing and remembering the gipsies and travellers by the few that cause trouble and leave mess where they have stopped, but surely this is wrong.

There is good and bad in every race and nationality, you only have to watch the news or read the papers to see this.

Everyone deserves judging on their own merits, none of us can help what we are born into and if we were all judged on what we were and not who we were I am sure we would have suffered racism at some point.

As for the keeping of the proposed sites clean from the few who do leave mess behind, I am sure there is an answer for this.

While we're looking at this problem, maybe we can tackle the state of some of the farms in the area, as these ruin the landscape. But we just seem to accept these along with overgrown gardens.

NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED


I HAVE read recent coverage on the subject of the gipsy sites and have a couple of points I would like to make.

The quote below is from the council website.

National government requires all local councils like South Kesteven District Council to "make appropriate provision for gipsies and travellers".

This means the council has to identify the need for permanent and transit pitches.

County-wide and district-wide surveys show that in addition to the existing permanent site in Grantham, there is a need for a further 20 permanent pitches and five transit pitches across the entire 365 square miles of the district.

A pitch should broadly be big enough to accommodate a larger residential caravan and a smaller travelling van.

I would like to understand what exactly the evidence is, that points to a need for additional permanent pitches.

These people travel so why do they need a permanent pitch? If they want to stay in one place but live in a mobile home there are appropriate sites for this. A 'permanent gipsy site' is a contradiction in terms!

The quote refers to surveys. What is it in these surveys that indicates a need in our area? This has not been made clear.

Market Deeping is already seeing local services and amenities stretched and unable to cope with additional demand.

To be honest it is not simply about property value for me – I am planning to stay in Market Deeping because it is (at present) a safe, friendly community. I do not want to see our village deteriorate as it inevitably will should a site go ahead.

The issue on property value is that we will not be able to afford to move away from here and protect our family from what would certainly be a unpleasant environment to live in.

Also, I am sure there are many provisions national Government requires our council to make yet they have not delivered – why is this one so critical?

Perhaps we could suggest a review of all outstanding actions and prioritise the delivery based on benefit to the entire community – who fund via council tax etc the activities of the council and who vote the council in as opposed to benefiting people who do not contribute financially or otherwise and who choose to exclude themselves from the norm.

Molly Eagle
Tattershall Drive,
Market Deeping