DCC obfuscates : Open slather for freedom campers at Warrington

According to the DCC (via LGOIMA) – [but make that the personnel manning desks at the department concerned; not the LGOIMA officials] – the survey results for freedom camping at Warrington Domain WILL NOT be available until a council or community board meeting this month.

The DCC response to my LGOIMA request (13 March) was:

[16 March] Official information request for 577864, KERR, FREEDOM CAMPING SURVEY
I refer to your official information request dated 13-March-2017 for a full copy of the survey results of the Warrington freedom camping survey. We have decided to refuse your request under section 17(d) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, as the information requested will soon be publically (sic) available. Staff are planning to present this as a report to either the Infrastructure Services and Networks committee on April 10, or the next meeting of the Waikouaiti Coast Community Board on April 19….

The agenda for April 10 does not contain the item.
An agenda is not yet available for April 19.

****

NO SURVEY FIGURES
because DCC’s busy with Other things like keeping Lids On, like managing COMPLETE RUBBISH such as the slant grab of public land for corporations that might build cheap leaky Chase-style apartment buildings (that look like hotels)(tall penile ones no longer allowed at CHC) or site the ‘Govt gold mine of revenue’, ACC (that can easily afford any Other property in town), on the best ancillary site to assist the Hospital rebuild; and for the developers of Mosgiel who Must Have an over-specified over-priced pool funded by ratepayers using the successful CST model that sent us all to Penury.

NO SURVEY FIGURES
because the pool site, road names (diversity!?!) and road stopping will be discussed at the meeting on 10 April (Infrastructure Services and Networks Committee); greenhouse gas emissions (Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting, 11 April); and ‘updates’ (glory be, more pressure to Spend rates) for the boondoggles Ara Toi, City of Literature and the Public Art Framework (Community and Culture Committee meeting, 11 April). In amongst this menu of outstanding nothingness, is the item South Dunedin Hub, surely another chance to Delay and Defund that.

Inestimable Joy. And no survey figures.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED to the city council under the present red-green fawning leadership with Corporation Christmas dangling on its mind.

Well, local body politics has ESCALATED on what it does best – supervising with maximum inefficiency, the major time-wasting DCC slushfund (The Bank Of Other People’s Money) using impractical, morally-superior soft-handed ‘councillors’ to push council staff agendas into play.
Piglets are expected to Roast the LTP.

Oui, monsieur. The free lunches, coffees outside The Fix, and council stipends are at an all-time A+ for deficiency and delinquency.

****

Then came a missive from The Star, via ODT this weekend. When all council bad timing and obfuscation had looked to succeed. There it was: NUMBERS.

At Facebook:

Deeply interested, I read further……

TRUCKLOADS…. HUNDREDS….
All down to DCC staff deciding before Christmas NOT TO ENFORCE the current Camping Control Bylaw 23. So to Keep Trouble out of Metropolitan Dunedin.
—Leaving Warrington residents and ratepayers to absorb the antisocial hours, the noise, the indiscriminate toileting and rubbish, the shell fishing defying bag limits, all the unlawful long-stayers, and the Total loss of proper access to their own village green, now rutted by tyre tracks.

Despicable.

DCC should be formally challenged on the lack of enforcement and lack of Health & Safety.

Dear god, don’t let the present threat of disease at Warrington Domain, poorly managed by DCC in the current conditions, involve Typhoid. The deskhuggers won’t cope.

Related Posts and Comments:
● 16.3.17 WE have the information, unreasonable delay providing it #LGOIMA
● 15.2.17 Warrington : DCC dictates loss of community’s grassed recreation reserve to freeloaders
8.2.17 Hands Off Enjoyment of OUR Beaches #DCC
● 6.2.17 Uncontrolled freedom camping at Warrington Domain this weekend —DCC ‘hell model’ [no enforcement]
● 1.2.17 “Fake news” from DCC boffins & Community Board re freedom camping at Warrington Domain #TheBlight
10.2.16 Dunedin freedom camping #DCC #enforcement
16.12.14 DCC: Freedom Camping issues
7.12.09 Coastal protection zones

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Advertisements

14 Comments

Filed under Baloney, Business, DCC, DCC Bylaws, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Events, Freedom camping, Geography, Health, Health & Safety, Heritage, Hot air, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Pools, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

14 responses to “DCC obfuscates : Open slather for freedom campers at Warrington

  1. Elizabeth

    LGOIMA Request 288545

    ● Original request emailed to DCC 22 Jan 2017
    ● DCC response received 28 Feb 2017 [3 hours free research only]
    ● Revised request (my Question 11. only) emailed to DCC 1 Mar 2017
    ● DCC [part] response received 10 Apr 2017

    Subject: Request number Warrington Domain costs
    Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:39 p.m.
    From: DCC Manager Civil and Legal
    To: Elizabeth Kerr

    Hi Elizabeth,
    Re: your request for information about the costs for the Warrington Domain is below. The costs specified below cover the period since 1 July 2016 as follows:

    – the daily/weekly/monthly (whichever applies) hire cost of port-a-loos and how many are on hire;
    ● $480 a month for 4 port a loos, $20 a week per unit for servicing.

    – weekly/monthly (which ever applies) cost of rubbish collection and removal from the site;
    ● Emptying of big belly rubbish bins included in the general parks maintenance costs below.

    – the purchase and installation costs for solar powered compacting rubbish receptacles, and the number of these units installed;
    ● 50 per week per unit, 2 x unit’s one off installation cost of $44.16 (response crew work order)

    – the purchase and installation costs of any other fixtures or facilities at the Domain;
    ● See answer below for the Domain toilet upgrade

    – the annual costs associated with vandalisation of any fixtures and facilities provided at the Domain;
    ● Not an annual cost associated with this. We do not hold the information in this format. We would need to do a manual search of every reported case of vandalism or damage reported and check costs.

    – the annual cost for maintenance and upgrade of any fixtures and facilities provided at the Domain;
    ● Domain toilet upgrade: $50,803

    – the annual cost for grounds maintenance (including turf work, playing fields, grass mowing and weed control, roads and pathways and fencing/barriers; power, sewerage, water connections, materials brought to site such as soil, gravel and sand);
    ● Approximately $38,115.00 (general Parks maintenance Work done under contract 6206)

    – the annual cost of any contracting or subcontracting services to maintain the Domain for public use;
    ● [no response]

    – the annual cost of DCC staff time to oversee the Domain on the public’s behalf (including site visits, grounds management, planning and policy development, governance and admin, community engagement, processing complaints, enforcement, reporting to Council, other);
    ● [no response]

    – the cost of any surveys being conducted by DCC or service contractors to assess freedom camping numbers and impacts on the Domain; and
    ● [no response]

    – other costs not outlined here, which might include professional, legal and resource management fees
    ● $700 in payments to people carrying out survey.

    We don’t hold the other information you have requested in the form requested. A manual counting exercise would need to be undertaken to extract and report on that data. This will exceed the three hours of time available free of charge. 
    Please advise if you would like to receive an estimate for the extraction of that data.
     
    Regards,

    Manager Civic and Legal, Corporate Services
    Dunedin City Council

    ****

    LGOIMA Request 288545 revised [involving 3 hours free research only] re my Question 11. only, originally put with other questions to DCC on 22 Jan 2017:

    From: Elizabeth Kerr
    Sent: Wednesday, 1 March 2017 6:40 p.m.
    To: Manager Civil and Legal
    Cc: DCC Governance Support; Sandy Graham [DCC General Manager Strategy and Governance]; Elizabeth Kerr
    Subject: RE: Request for Information Concerning Warrington Domain

    [excerpt]

    …….It is my preference that the three hours free search is given to answering question 11. only, and for the period now stated here:

    The question now reads:

    11. What has it cost DCC to maintain Warrington Domain in the period from 1 Dec 2015 to 1 Mar 2017 only.
    Please provide itemised figures where known for this 15 month period.
    Estimates of the most recent costs in 2017 will be acceptable.

    The figures may include:
    – the daily/weekly/monthly (whichever applies) hire cost of port-a-loos and how many are on hire;
    – weekly/monthly (which ever applies) cost of rubbish collection and removal from the site;
    – the purchase and installation costs for solar powered compacting rubbish receptacles, and the number of these units installed;
    – the purchase and installation costs of any other fixtures or facilities at the Domain;
    – the annual costs associated with vandalisation of any fixtures and facilities provided at the Domain;
    – the annual cost for maintenance and upgrade of any fixtures and facilities provided at the Domain;
    – the annual cost for grounds maintenance (including turf work, playing fields, grass mowing and weed control, roads and pathways and fencing/barriers; power, sewerage, water connections, materials brought to site such as soil, gravel and sand);
    – the annual cost of any contracting or subcontracting services to maintain the Domain for public use;
    – the annual cost of DCC staff time to oversee the Domain on the public’s behalf (including site visits, grounds management, planning and policy development, governance and admin, community engagement, processing complaints, enforcement, reporting to Council, other);
    – the cost of any surveys being conducted by DCC or service contractors to assess freedom camping numbers and impacts on the Domain; and
    – other costs not outlined here, which might include professional, legal and resource management fees.
    ……[ends]

  2. Elizabeth

    Word received informally today:

    The results of DCC’s two-week survey of freedom camping sites are not ready for release. Or so DCC alleges.

    My LGOIMA request seeking public release of the survey results (names redacted), was declined ie Blocked by council staff at CARS.

    The survey results weren’t ready for presentation to Councillors at yesterday’s
    Infrastructure Services and Networks Committee meeting (April 10).
    Further, there’s no corresponding item on the agenda for next week’s Waikouaiti Coast Community Board meeting (April 19).

    Staff are reported as saying there are “some difficulties” collating results and they’re still working on the analysis.

    How about that.

    This is going down like the slow eek of the June 2015 flood reports. With a lot less data to ‘arrange’, I have to assume.

  3. What is going on behind the scenes with the freedom camping issue? Notice this article in ODT about the same kind of problems on the West Coast. (Indeed, these problems exist throughout New Zealand) : https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/west-coast/west-coast-struggles-freedom-camper-influx

    Quoting: The Westland District Council has no restrictions at all on freedom camping. A bylaw was drafted a few years ago but the council backed off when threatened with legal action by the New Zealand Motor Caravan Association (Wings). (ends)

    I believe it is central government who is the real villain in the piece here. Councils are required by law to make freedom camping options available, presumably because central government supposes this to benefit the country economically via tourism. Then a cashed-up organisation like the NZ Motor Caravan Association uses this law to threaten local bodies.

    I believe this law is unjust. Not because I am taking a position on the rights and wrongs of freedom camping. But instead because I believe in the democratic principle of ‘appropriate decision-making’, otherwise known as the principle of subsidiarity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

    Which is (quoting) ‘that social and political issues should be dealt with at the most immediate (or local) level that is consistent with their resolution.’

    Subsidiarity is to me simply a basic principle of justice. If something affects you directly, then you should have a right to be directly, even more directly involved than others, in democratic decision-making about it.

    Empires always challenge subsidiarity because they desire total territorial political control. Central governments also often challenge it, sometimes on the grounds of the benefits of nation-wide uniformity and consistency with regards to various public policies and regulations. But such uniformity and consistency can be said to be no more than another way, less transparent, way of describing total territorial political control.

    To me, the principle of appropriate local decision-making is an absolutely fundamental principle of any good and just relationship between central and local government. However, it is not being upheld with respect to the present law regarding freedom camping.

    Local residents directly adversely affected by freedom camping IMO should be asking the DCC to submit to central government that the law should be changed to give local councils the power to ban freedom camping altogether. In other words, to give local residents the power to choose how public spaces in their locality may be used and what associated costs they are willing to pay for.

    • Elizabeth

      There is a website that lists all local bodies and their approach to freedom camping. A number of councils are now banning the activity from public parks and reserves. Or restricting numbers. Too large a subject for me to deal to today. The DCC’s proposed bylaw will soon be up for consultation. Will save it for then.

  4. Hype O'Thermia

    Does there need to be a law about “freedom camping”? E.g. demands that anyone who sleeps in a vehicle should have full onboard toilet and washing facilities!
    Isn’t the real point the things that are gross no matter who does them, whether staying/sleeping for a week or on a family picnic?
    Dumping their rubbish.
    Leaving turds, not even covered!
    Churning up public parks – like boys do when they do driving stunts on sports fields.
    Why not concentrate on the individual acts that are unacceptable and leaving it up to people to solve their own problem whether with a lidded bucket (and sawdust) or bucket with plastic bag that can be tied off and deposited just like dog poops in proper disposal place….
    Much more enforceable than drafting and enforcing rules about vehicles or designating certain “YES” areas then dealing with the human ingenuity that finds other no-rules non-designated areas and filthing them up.

  5. Elizabeth

    The rain at Dunedin, not exactly huge (over hyped ?)….. has meant:

    “All freedom camping area sites were closed until further notice. Campers are advised to find alternative an accommodation site tonight.”
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11837032

  6. Elizabeth

    Meanwhile in Central Otago, and elsewhere….
    The Mayor of Central Otago tries to understate the problem, funny that.

    The issue [freedom camping] was becoming more serious and continuing to pose a health risk, especially for orchard and vineyard workers staying in the areas. –Robin Dicey, Cromwell Community Board

    Sat, 15 Apr 2017
    ODT: Camping gripes meeting
    By Pam Jones
    The Central Otago District Council has called a meeting with Land and Information New Zealand in the wake of increasing complaints about “irresponsible” camping in Central Otago and how lakeside camping areas are being managed. Central Otago Mayor Tim Cadogan said he called the meeting because the service provided through Linz was “not enough” and elected members were regularly receiving complaints about the camping areas. […] As the owner of the lakeshore, Linz is responsible for the area around Lake Dunstan. It has a contractor that maintains the areas, including the picnic area at Bendigo, where camping is permitted for a maximum of three nights. The CODC has a freedom-camping policy and works alongside Linz and forwards any complaints it receives, but has no powers to police areas. Cont/

    The only way to solve the problem was for the Government to change its policy and for freedom camping to be banned, as it was in places such as Canada, Hawaii and much of Europe. Campers were “defiling” Central Otago and “playing the system”, Mr Dicey said.

  7. Hype O'Thermia

    The only way to stop excessive/uncivilised “freedom” (from decent behaviour) campers is for the locals to stop asking authorities to do something and go feral themselves. Cowshed effluent water-bombs on vehicles, it’s not all that bad for the environment, not so good to vehicle paintwork. Bird-scarers going BANG from twilight….. By the time councils and central government work out what to do and who’s to do it – I suggest more toilets so we NZers also have somewhere to “go” – all the places a person would think of stopping will be as badly befouled as the rivers and take as long to clean up.

  8. Elizabeth

    Little forward and long-term thinking – the Government continues to increase tourism targets, without an accompanying focus on improving infrastructure.

    Thu, 20 Apr 2017
    ODT Editorial: The freedom to camp?
    OPINION New Zealand’s push for more tourists is putting the spotlight on some of our greatest scenery, but not always for the right reasons. Freedom camping is again on the radar and the latest focus is on Central Otago, where complaints are increasing about the numbers of people still staying around Lake Dunstan and the predictable overflowing toilets and rubbish bins that eventuate. As well, concern about the health risk orchard workers staying in poorly-equipped camping areas could pose to the region’s export fruit industry is very real. […] Local authorities cannot be expected to deal with the issue when the increase in tourism is being driven by central government. […] Should New Zealand really be encouraging those who use apps to search for camping areas that are free, and then either ignore rules that say they can only stay in an area for three nights, or skirt the rules by going somewhere else for one night and then back for another three? Cont/

    ****

    LGOIMA

    Further to the LGOIMA request I submitted back in March which is detailed in the post at the top of this thread – the reply to which is this from DCC:

    [16 March] Official information request for 577864, KERR, FREEDOM CAMPING SURVEY
    I refer to your official information request dated 13-March-2017 for a full copy of the survey results of the Warrington freedom camping survey. We have decided to refuse your request under section 17(d) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, as the information requested will soon be publically (sic) available. Staff are planning to present this as a report to either the Infrastructure Services and Networks committee on April 10, or the next meeting of the Waikouaiti Coast Community Board on April 19….

    Neither meeting (no agenda item) discussed the survey results.
    Read on………………

    From: [DCC Governance Support]
    Sent: Thursday, 20 April 2017 9:02 a.m.
    To: Sandy Graham [DCC General Manager Strategy and Governance]; Elizabeth Kerr
    Subject: RE: Re: Response to LGOIMA 306090

    Dear Elizabeth,

    The word “decision” pops up automatically in the template letter provided to us by the Ombudsman’s office and I usually re-type it, but simply missed it in this case.

    Regards
    [DCC Governance Support]

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    From: Sandy Graham [DCC General Manager Strategy and Governance]
    Sent: Thursday, 20 April 2017 8:51 a.m.
    To: Elizabeth Kerr
    Cc: [DCC Governance Support]
    Subject: RE: Re: Response to LGOIMA 306090

    Morning Elizabeth

    From the email string you have attached below, your request was for the “timeline” for the presentation of the survey data.

    The “timeline was in the response from Jeni – “before the end of the financial year”.

    So your information request was answered. That said, the word decision is probably better suited to responses where the information requested is withheld.
    The last line should better have said “If you wish to discuss any aspects of this response with us….”.

    I have cc’ed [DCC Governance Support] who will make any tweaks as required to future responses.

    Cheers
    Sandy

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    From: Elizabeth Kerr
    Sent: Wednesday, 19 April 2017 5:41 PM
    To: Sandy Graham [DCC General Manager Strategy and Governance]
    Cc: Elizabeth Kerr
    Subject: Fwd: Re: Response to LGOIMA 306090

    Hi Sandy

    I’m not clear in relation to this in the DCC reply:

    If you wish to discuss this decision with us, please feel free to contact Sandy Graham.

    What decision? What exactly is DCC’s decision in terms of the legislation (LGOIMA)?

    As a learned colleague conveyed to me: the response today from DCC appears to be an explanation of what DCC intends to do, not a decision.

    Please can you clarify?

    Kind regards, Elizabeth

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    ——– Original message ——–
    From: Elizabeth Kerr
    Date: 19/04/17 4:45 PM (GMT+12:00)
    To: [DCC Governance Support]
    Cc: Elizabeth Kerr, Sandy Graham [DCC General Manager Strategy and Governance]
    Subject: Re: Response to LGOIMA 306090

    Acknowledged. Thanks [DCC Governance Support].

    Rhetorical thought for Sandy’s noting wrt the department concerned…

    It might be terribly difficult to manage and report a 2-week survey of specific camping sites (we trust, done with trained personnel, appropriate brief, methodology and framework for response – accompanied by efficient information gathering) ?

    Data entry is fast, analysis of the actual set questions put to campers (and any corroborating or additional comments the campers provided) is not space science. The People’s Panel, for example, seems to show DCC is quite capable of Surveying locals and garnering results in good time.

    The time lag between the dates of data capture, my initial LGOIMA request, and DCC’s not providing information (raw or processed, in whole or in part) – in whatever way DCC interprets a ‘full set of survey results’ – surely does not require a long plodding wait for a strategically geared “staff report” – the information gathered should be a sufficiently clear snapshot to tell us who or what is freedom camping at ratepayer owned reserves and for how long ….depending on if Bylaw 23 is actively being enforced.

    I’m happy to receive legible (raw) electronic data before DCC’s final analysis, if to inspire a wriggle on before the long winter of 2O18 discontent.

    In fact data(=results) before DCC analysis is probably preferable.

    Kind regards, Elizabeth

    ——– Original message ——–
    From: [DCC Governance Support]
    Date: 19/04/17 11:47 AM (GMT+12:00)
    To: Elizabeth Kerr
    Subject: Response to LGOIMA 306090

    19-Apr-2017

    Elizabeth Kerr

    Dear Ms Kerr,

    Official information request for KERR, FREEDOM CAMPING SURVEY

    I refer to your official information request dated 12-April-2017 for “the timeline for presentation of (freedom camping) survey results and analysis, by report, to Councillors and or Community Board(s).”

    I have put your request to Jendi Paterson, our Recreation Planning and Facilities Manager, and she has sent me the following response:

    “The survey results were in hard copy so it has taken some time to gather all of the information and ensure it can be analysed properly. This information will be made available at the earliest opportunity, but will likely feed into a report that will look at amending schedule C of the Freedom Camping Bylaw if required. This will go to the appropriate committee or Council before the end of the financial year (end of June, 2017).”

    If you wish to discuss this decision with us, please feel free to contact Sandy Graham.

    Yours sincerely

    Governance Support Officer
    Dunedin City Council

  9. Elizabeth

    Sat, 22 Apr 2017
    ODT: Mayor cracks down on freedom
    By Samuel White
    Clutha’s mayor wants to move away from using the term “freedom camping” and instead talk of “responsible” or “irresponsible” campers.
    At the West Otago and Lawrence-Tuapeka Community Board meetings on Wednesday, Clutha Mayor Bryan Cadogan used the words to describe campers based on their different behaviours. […] He said several mayors had met to discuss camping issues and the new descriptions were coined by his brother, Central Otago Mayor Tim Cadogan. Cont/

  10. I totally agree that the term ‘freedom camping’ obfuscates and completely distorts public debate about this issue. Who isn’t in favour of ‘freedom’? But the reality of this issue is that it’s a matter of balancing one group’s ‘freedom’ against another group’s freedom. Yet even the name of the law involved is biased in favour of the campers: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0061/latest/DLM3742815.html
    Freedom Camping Act 2011

    And notice this from the above Act:
    12 Bylaws must not absolutely prohibit freedom camping
    (1) A local authority may not make bylaws under section 11 that have the effect of prohibiting freedom camping in all the local authority areas in its district.
    (2) This section is for the avoidance of doubt. (ends)
    Is that fair to local residents? Why can’t local bodies decide this matter for themselves with input from local residents? The present situation is unsustainable because local bodies’ provision of more and more camp sites to ease pressure just encourages greater numbers of campers.

    The present law benefits (among others) the group represented here: https://www.nzmca.org.nz/who-we-are/
    Who have a lifestyle which avoids paying rates. And so displaces extra costs on to those who do pay rates. How can that be fair?
    Excellent idea to change the law to a ‘Responsible Camping Act’. It would be good to see international tourist advertising publicise that. (No, you CANNOT come to New Zealand and TRASH it!)

  11. Hype O'Thermia

    The difference between freedom and license became extinct during my lifetime.
    “Lifestyle which avoids paying rates” skates over the surface of how rates are set though. House with 10 people living in it is rated same as same house with 1 occupant, does this mean 9 people were avoiding paying rates? Or paying only an unfairly small proportion of rates?
    I like the idea of all camping rules and regs using the term “responsible camping”. No definition of how to be responsible – nothing prescriptive – but firm definition of how responsible campers affect other people, environment. How they achieve being responsible is their, uh, responsibility.
    I had young overseas relatives in a small van with bed and stove staying a few years back, they stayed likewise with other family and contacts. They enjoyed being largely independent, coming and going and self-catering without a lot of social obligation on the part of themselves or “hosts” apart from use of loo and shower.
    I have read some demands that people should be banned from all camping / sleeping in vehicles unless the vehicle is fully – FULLY – self contained with toilet and bathroom! Bidet, sauna and sous-vide cooker optional…..

    • Elizabeth

      Last back of envelope calculation is that Dunedin Ratepayers are subsidising the roughly 85 – 100+ freedom campers at Warrington Domain each night at $10 per head. Ratepayers were not asked (consulted!) whether they consented to this large financial impost through non enforcement of the DCC’s Camping Control Bylaw 23.

      Thanks to lack of management and enforcement by DCC’s CARS department (and the ineffectiveness and blind eyes of elected representatives), Warrington residents and ratepayers no longer have the use of their village green for sport and recreational activity.

      This has got nothing to do with the government legislation.

      ****

      At Facebook (this story also ran in ODT, noted at post top of thread):

  12. Hype O'Thermia

    The result will be, guarantee it, “volunteer” action by people who feel they as well as their grounds have been shat upon.
    Unfortunately none of the actions that might be undertaken by people reclaiming their places will directly affect the bozos who make (or don’t) the rules and who look the other way when rules are broken.

    I wonder what would happen if there were reports to police of the smell of cannabis being used in the camping area? Would that too be ignored? Different authorities, yet the apparent “seriousness” of that compared with depositing human waste and other litter which poses a health risk to others – argh, why try to work it out as if there was anything rational going on!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s