There probably the same people that were on the extinction rallies
why can’t the owners eject the scumbags and let their regulars in...?
Campsite closing because of bad behaviour.
- Thread starter Jim
- Start date
why can’t the owners eject the scumbags and let their regulars in...?
It’s part of the throwaway society, camping stuff is relatively cheap and just gets left behind. We were at Fairford last year and a large group turned up, complete around 10 tents and disco sound system. When the they left they just took the decks and speakers and piled everything else up, tents, sleeping bags etc and left it. The site owners have to pay to dispose of it. These are the youth who will save the planet!
- Sep 22, 2017
- 649
- 2,554
- Funster No
- 50,633
Monetise the problem! Cost in dna tracking, identification costs, time to administer it all, and the actual cleanup and responsible disposal at no expense spared, then issue the bill to them. If they can't pay, press gang them into a national cleanup corp run by the army and pay them the minimum wage till the bill is paid off. Thats a proper job creation scheme I could definately get behind 
I suspect that the culprits are not usually campers, but cannot get to their normal booze filled holidays in the Med / Costa's ( not coffee shops), where everything is done for them and they do not have to clear anything up because it is all done for them
Subscribers do not see these advertisements
Steve and Denise
LIFE MEMBER
The site is owned by the sister of the owner of the site we were on this weekend Being a working farm, they've always been able to rely on good behaviour. unfortunately they don't have the time to run the farm and keep tabs on rule breakers. Easier for them just to run the farm for a while
To be honest, I don't think that is an excuse.
If you are going to run a campsite big enough for 60 tents, that is a minimum of 120 people and probably closer to 150 people.
If they were only paying £10 per night per tent, that is £600, per night they are making. That is £4,200 a week.
Even if that was an exceptional weekend for £4200 they could have afforded to have employed a local to run the site, even if it was only for a few weeks.
Whilst I'm not for one second condoning the mess left behind, I do think the site managers need to shoulder most of the blame for not running the site properly.
Had they done so, they probably could have made a lot more money from the 6 weeks of operating the campsite than they will from 6 months of operating the farm.
OP
OP
Jim
Ringleader
Making? Have you ever run a business?
Taking maybe, there is a whole world between taking and making
Agreed:
In this case though, it's not just a field where they have a hand full of tents during the summer and make a few quid on the side.
This is a pretty big commercial camp site next door to a popular fell walking pub.
Personally if I was running the business I'd have someone on site if not all the time, most of the time, as a minimum morning and evening.
I agree you can have a one of group of people that could trash the place, but this does not seem to be the case, it was a lot of unrelated people arriving and not being supervised with regard to pitching, and no one putting up the 'site full' sign when they should have.
PS - Yes I do run a business, I own holiday lets, so not such a difference
Subscribers do not see these advertisements
- Apr 12, 2010
- 5,181
- 60,318
- Funster No
- 11,027
- MH
- Weinsberg Cara
- Exp
- since 2007
- May 1, 2008
- 19,597
- 51,591
- Funster No
- 2,459
- MH
- Burstner Privilege T
- Exp
- over 50 years
Fancy that... campsite campers giving campsite folk a bad name... 
JJ
JJ
The revenue they are going to loose,let alone the regulars who may not return,it would be a no brainier to have wardens on site in the busy summer months.
As mentioned in the original posts... campers have been going there for over 50yrs! Presumably, problem free before this incident. We are walkers and have stayed there with mostly other walkers or foreign visitors camping there. It has never needed to be fully manned before because the normal clients don't have the mindset of the numpties that recently caused the issue! As farmers, If they Have never before had an issue causing them to close the site, why would they change their usual protocols?
Subscribers do not see these advertisements
Basically three types of people.
Wealthy - who think themselves above everybody else.
Normal - who have some moral values and and show some respect where due.
Scum - no regard for anyone or anything.
Please yourself where you think you sit on this simplistic social scale but theres no doubt which group caused this campsite to close.
Wealthy - who think themselves above everybody else.
Normal - who have some moral values and and show some respect where due.
Scum - no regard for anyone or anything.
Please yourself where you think you sit on this simplistic social scale but theres no doubt which group caused this campsite to close.
- Apr 13, 2012
- 5,959
- 20,505
- Funster No
- 20,541
- MH
- Mobilvetta Euroyacht
- Exp
- 1996, then break 'til 2011
They had plenty of warning before opening after lockdown.
Duty of care to see SD and adequate sanitation were in place ?
Presumably someone was there to take their money, direct them to their pitch....
OP
OP
Jim
Ringleader
You can't pigeon hole people like that.
While plenty of very rich people are up their own, I've worked with disgustingly rich people who were the salt of the earth. Who would do anything for anyone and often did.
Normal people... can't be wealthy?
Scum... you're right there, and scum can be filthy rich too.
Your not wrong Jim
Built a helicopter barn for a chap who owned an island in the Seychelles, big game ranch in S/A and granite mines in Italy.
Lovely down to earth bloke and would spend ages talking, his wife though completely different animal for sure
Subscribers do not see these advertisements
What a bigoted view! You should be ashamed of yourself.
dabhand
LIFE MEMBER
Not if you were a fighter pilot you wouldn’tI got confused with ejection and ejaculation there for a minute.
English was never my strong point
dabhand
LIFE MEMBER
Agreed Jim, but you can pigeon hole people like that if your a bigot can’t you?
Subscribers do not see these advertisements
dabhand I dont think you understand the usage of the word bigot either.
Perhaps changing a couple of words in my post might help clarify my meaning.
People - who think themselves above everybody else.
People - who have some moral values and and show some respect where due.
People (Scum) - no regard for anyone or anything.
If you can think of a suitable collective noun or one word discription for the first two please post.
Perhaps changing a couple of words in my post might help clarify my meaning.
People - who think themselves above everybody else.
People - who have some moral values and and show some respect where due.
People (Scum) - no regard for anyone or anything.
If you can think of a suitable collective noun or one word discription for the first two please post.
- Oct 5, 2012
- 4,300
- 9,573
- Funster No
- 23,166
- MH
- Carado T132
- Exp
- 5 years, feel free to ask me about the Carado!!
dabhand
LIFE MEMBER
Ooh, slap me on the bottom with the woman’s Weekly, how patronising, and I also notice how you have left out the preceding word on each sentence ie wealthy, normal and scum, as for usage of the word bigot I think I used it in the right context in the sense that a person who believes all wealthy people think themselves above everybody else is clearly a bigot, as for a suitable collective noun nor one word description for the first two, although I’m clearly not up to your standards of language usage, I don’t believe there could possibly be one as your statements appear to me to be diametrically opposed,..... but how about incongruous!
'Ooh, slap me on the bottom with the woman’s Weekly'.
However you gain your personal gratification you will need to arrange such activity with your prefered partner I dont offer personal services to strangers.
I can see from the responses that most read the line 'wealthy - who think themselves above everybody else' has been interpreted as all 'wealthy' which was not my intention and is obviously not correct.
I did consider using 'entitled' due to wealth maybe that's a bit long winded but in hindsight would have saved a lot of typing.
Appoligies to any wealthy 'salt of the earth' peps on here who interpreted my comment as referring to them.
No incongruous is not the right word.
However you gain your personal gratification you will need to arrange such activity with your prefered partner I dont offer personal services to strangers.
I can see from the responses that most read the line 'wealthy - who think themselves above everybody else' has been interpreted as all 'wealthy' which was not my intention and is obviously not correct.
I did consider using 'entitled' due to wealth maybe that's a bit long winded but in hindsight would have saved a lot of typing.
Appoligies to any wealthy 'salt of the earth' peps on here who interpreted my comment as referring to them.
No incongruous is not the right word.
dabhand
LIFE MEMBER
Apology accepted although I would say that incongruous is one of a number of correct synonyms that could be used in this situation as a collective noun is a noun that refers to a group of people or things as one unit, as previously said as the statements are diametrically opposed this cannot be the case in this situation. I am satisfied than incongruous is a fair description of the statements'Ooh, slap me on the bottom with the woman’s Weekly'.
However you gain your personal gratification you will need to arrange such activity with your prefered partner I dont offer personal services to strangers.
I can see from the responses that most read the line 'wealthy - who think themselves above everybody else' has been interpreted as all 'wealthy' which was not my intention and is obviously not correct.
I did consider using 'entitled' due to wealth maybe that's a bit long winded but in hindsight would have saved a lot of typing.
Appoligies to any wealthy 'salt of the earth' peps on here who interpreted my comment as referring to them.
No incongruous is not the right word.
Subscribers do not see these advertisements
Join us or log in to post a reply.
To join in you must be a member of MotorhomeFun
Join MotorhomeFun
Join us, it quick and easy!
Log in
Already a member? Log in here.