Signatures 789 total
Page: « ‹ 1, ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 › »
-
601
Name: Rosemary Kimber on Feb 12, 2013Comments:Flag
-
602
Name: Jessica Goodman on Feb 12, 2013Comments:Flag
-
603
Name: Lynda Buckingham on Feb 12, 2013Comments: We in Potton have no real police coverage now,so how will more travellers affect us if we accept a lot more?Flag
-
604
Name: Barry Butler on Feb 12, 2013Comments:Flag
-
605
Name: A B McMurdo on Feb 12, 2013Comments:Flag
-
606
Name: Bob Prebble on Feb 12, 2013Comments: I heartily endorse this petition! This also affects Stotfold and district, and as I live in Hitchin and my daughter is moving to Fairfield Park, these proposals coulkd affect us as well.Flag
-
607
Name: Anonymous on Feb 12, 2013Comments: The Bury Hill countryside is wide open to view and many people walk around and by the church to take a country walk, people driving into the village from the crossroads dont want to see gypsy sites , they should be hidden like to one is on common rd, the children are a menace, rude and unruly, my mother, son and myself have all been on the receiving end of foul mouthed 8 - 10 year old children and friends say the same, usually whilst the kids are using the skate park and recreation areas. My daughter has suffered two gypsy kids in her class for 7 years, they are disruptive and go unchecked by staff. No more if you pleaseFlag
-
608
Name: Anonymous on Feb 12, 2013Comments: My neighbours have come round asking me to put their names on the petition against the site on Bury Hill where they live. They say we do not need any more gypsy sites in this village, as the gypsy children are so disruptive and rude. They are pensioners and feel very worried they and there belongings will not be safe. Sue walks her dog every day along Sutton Rd and past the Church, she is worried her caravan will be stolen and her house burgled whilst they are away.Flag
-
609
Name: Christian Boehmer on Feb 12, 2013Comments:Flag
-
610
Name: Anonymous on Feb 12, 2013Comments:Flag
-
611
Name: Anonymous on Feb 12, 2013Comments:Flag
-
612
Name: Anonymous on Feb 12, 2013Comments:Flag
-
613
Name: Anonymous on Feb 12, 2013Comments:Flag
-
614
Name: Beth Norman on Feb 12, 2013Comments:Flag
-
615
Name: Steve Newman on Feb 12, 2013Comments:Flag
-
616
Name: Anonymous on Feb 12, 2013Comments:Flag
-
617
Name: Anonymous on Feb 12, 2013Comments:Flag
-
618
Name: Anonymous on Feb 12, 2013Comments:Flag
-
619
Name: Merv Saville on Feb 12, 2013Comments:Flag
-
620
Name: Brendan Moore on Feb 12, 2013Comments: Another site is not needed in Potton, we will consider compensation for loss of value to our house, already been given to one household in Potton. Such a large area opposite us would be a disfiguration of the landscape, so visible from all over the town. There are too few facilities to accommodate such a large development. The list goes onFlag
-
621
Name: Sylvain Piffard on Feb 12, 2013Comments:Flag
-
622
Name: Anonymous on Feb 13, 2013Comments: We already have our share of newcomers to this area.Flag
-
623
Name: Tim Eltringham on Feb 13, 2013Comments:Flag
-
624
Name: Jane Eltringham on Feb 13, 2013Comments: We are not making racist statements and should not be treated as if we are.Flag
-
625
Name: Anonymous on Feb 13, 2013Comments:Flag
-
626
Name: Anonymous on Feb 13, 2013Comments:Flag
-
627
Name: Avril Pharoah on Feb 14, 2013Comments: It is not many years since we had a meeting discussing the gypsy site in Potton when there was a lot of trouble at that time. The outcome seemed to be to keep the site small and we could all live together.Why has this opinion now changed? Apparently even the gypsies themselves do not want more sites.If every ward had a small site maybe we would not have the aggressive comments I have read and we could all get along.There are already plans approved for a large development in the town which we cannot oppose as most of us have children who need homes so all services will be stretched enormously. Please leave Potton in peace and don't drag up old hatred.Flag
-
628
Name: Anonymous on Feb 14, 2013Comments:Flag
-
629
Name: Anonymous on Feb 14, 2013Comments: No more. The money could be spent elsewhere.Flag
-
630
Name: Anonymous on Feb 14, 2013Comments: People are signing this petition annonmously because of the threat these people cause. hy would you put that on the people in our community.Flag
-
631
Name: Lloyd on Feb 14, 2013Comments:Flag
-
632
Name: Daumantas Grigaravicius on Feb 14, 2013Comments:Flag
-
633
Name: Daumantas Grigaravicius on Feb 14, 2013Comments:Flag
-
634
Name: Josh Chandler on Feb 14, 2013Comments:Flag
-
635
Name: Shelley Round on Feb 14, 2013Comments: not against travellers already here but we don't need new sites or new large housing estatesFlag
-
636
Name: Enid ~Randall on Feb 14, 2013Comments:Flag
-
637
Name: Anonymous on Feb 14, 2013Comments:Flag
-
638
Name: Anonymous on Feb 14, 2013Comments: The existing traveller site is quite enough for a small community the size of Potton. The fact that only 3 of the 8 councillors have proposed sites in their Wards is disgraceful. To have almost 50% of the proposed sites in just 10% of the Wards would be placing a totally unfair and unjust burden on those communities.Flag
-
639
Name: Colin Wright on Feb 15, 2013Comments:Flag
-
640
Name: Jacob Wright on Feb 15, 2013Comments:Flag
-
641
Name: Stephen Wright on Feb 15, 2013Comments:Flag
-
642
Name: David Whitbread on Feb 16, 2013Comments:Flag
-
643
Name: Bryan Page on Feb 17, 2013Comments: The concentration in and around Potton is entirely unacceptable; the current inhabitants in this zone have a democratic right to stop this clearly unfair distribution and that is what I am doing by signing this petition.Flag
-
644
Name: Richard Fry on Feb 17, 2013Comments:Flag
-
645
Name: Adam Hutchinson on Feb 17, 2013Comments:Flag
-
646
Name: Ethan on Feb 17, 2013Comments: I am outragedFlag
-
647
Name: Anonymous on Feb 18, 2013Comments:Flag
-
648
Name: Anonymous on Feb 18, 2013Comments:Flag
-
649
Name: Howard Moore on Feb 18, 2013Comments:Flag
-
650
Name: Georgia Seaman on Feb 18, 2013Comments:Flag