just had a court summons!

[Saracen]

Fickle thinking I'm afraid. You're actually making the Council into all that you despise about it including making it bigger and more expensive to run. At the same time, by disregarding obvious laws because they are not letter perfect, what you advocate is making everyone's quality of life that little bit more lousy. I suppose it's about attitude. The selfish will exploit whenever they can to have things their way whilst those who respect other people won't.

You are convincing me of one thing though and that's that more paint and speed traps ARE needed everywhere so the selfish have to pay through the nose for being the way they are. Speeding and inconsiderate parking needs to be punished with diligence and if someone gets off a fine on a technicality, there will be more opportuinty to recoup the loss. Law dodging will begat more law and the selfish will be footing the bill. It's only what they deserve .

It is absolutely not fickle thinking. If councils want to enforce laws, they ought to actually comply with the ones they're trying to enforce. There is nothing fickle in expecting them to be held to at least the same standards as they try to hold us.

It is not that councils aren't "letter perfect" either. As I pointed out earlier, some councils get their decisions overturned by 94% of appeals. And nationally (excluding London), the overall average is that 60% are overturned, and inside London, it's 68%.

Councils have people employed to do this stuff, and they have the whole weight of the state behind them, with access to professional lawyers, while the poor motorist either has to rely on himself, or fork out personally for lawyers, and suffer the costs and inconvenience of fighting the state. The state owes us a duty to take care in enforcing the laws it is charged with enforcing, yet the system is designed to work as guilty unless proven innocent, and because of obtuse councils that either can't or more likely won't do their job properly, people are forced to object not once, not even twice, but three times.

It isn't that councils aren't "letter perfect". It's that in this regard they are utterly incompetent. Or, perhaps seeing as they have a vested financial interest in this, perhaps it's more insidious than that?

And Santa, I'm not making the council into anything. They've made themselves into what they are without any help from me. All I expect from them is that they do their job, and enforce laws. I do not expect them to penalise people illegally, and that's what they're doing a good percentage of the time.

How on earth can a council manage to get 94% of appeals go against them? Something is radically wrong with that. What astonishes me is that you can't see it.

[santa claus]

What astonishes me is that you can't see it.

It's not that I can't see it; I feel I can see beyond it and to where it leads. Unfortunately, the selfish can't see beyond themselves.

Inconsiderate parking could lead to accident or fatality. Feeling smug about cleverly exploiting 'a parking opportunity' wouldn't quite feel the same then would it? Try searching for the hero inside yourself when someone's child has to step into the traffic to avoid your it's-not-on-a-full-yellow-line-so-it's-legal-guvnor parked car.

Accountability is personal to each and every one of us; it isn't a Council edict.

[yamangman]

As tesco say, every little helps.

I could begin to agree to your point... if I didn't have the feeling that you are trying to be nothing more the contradictory. I would suggest taking a leaf from your own ideals but no matter how conciliatory the opposing viewpoint you seem take the opposite view, and veildly stating that the OP is selfish, ignorant and smug don't appear at all like the kind of ideals you espouse, that us selfish folks don't comprehend.

[mayhem]

you should get away with it. If i can get away with doing 130 Mph because they haven't calibrated the Laser after 1 1/2 years and all so got away with doing 60mph in a 30 because the markings on the road were not precisely 1 meter apart then what you have there is the counsel not following the law to the letter and interpreting a law in they way they see fit which is illegal. Hop-e you win and when you have stick a sign up saying you've won in court against them so others know. All so stick them as well in court for the cost of petrol and time of work and any thing else you can think off ... "It will teach them a lesson". I did it lol and won and the police came off worst as i ended up with £700 in costs as well ... lol

[Saracen]

True and I couldn't agree more (assuming your info is correct), however you were Quoting Santas response to my question which has nothing to do with the OP subject.

You said ...

Intresting point Santa brought up, if I understood his posts.

Should people obey laws (on moralistic and community grounds) that are intended to be legal, but for various technical reasons (mis spelt names, missing signs etc) are invalid?

I have been wrestling with that one since reading through this thread and have yet to decide one way or the other

You specified posts, in the plural, without specifying which posts. You then gave a fairly accurate synopsis of the discussion so far, much of which has been between Santa and myself, and which has been about parking offences enforced by the Council, so it most certainly has been about the council. The laws Santa has been talking about that we should obey even when they aren't in force because of the council's goofs.

If you want to discuss the morality of that situation in the abstract, then you can always start a thread to discuss it. In the meantime, when it's in a long thread, it's a fair assumption that you're referring to it in the same context of the rest of the thread.

However, if you want to divorced it from councils, then the same logic holds true of any other body that enforces laws, They damn well need to obey then themselves, because they can't expect us to obey them when they don't. That is especially true when they then try to hold us responsible for an "offence" that, as a matter of law, has not been contravened. They are punishing the innocent, because you can only be guilty of an offence if you've broken the law. And, as I pointed out earlier, in appeal after appeal, the independent adjudicator ruled that the penalty was overturned because no offence had been committed.

The figures I quoted are correct, by the way. They are official statistics from the Chief Adjudicator of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. See post 81 in this thread.

[Saracen]

It's not that I can't see it; I feel I can see beyond it and to where it leads. Unfortunately, the selfish can't see beyond themselves.

Inconsiderate parking could lead to accident or fatality. Feeling smug about cleverly exploiting 'a parking opportunity' wouldn't quite feel the same then would it? Try searching for the hero inside yourself when someone's child has to step into the traffic to avoid your it's-not-on-a-full-yellow-line-so-it's-legal-guvnor parked car.

Accountability is personal to each and every one of us; it isn't a Council edict.

Yes, inconsiderate parking could lead to all sorts of unpleasant consequences, which is why I pointed out earlier that I've had exactly one parking ticket in my life (about 30 years ago), and NO other brushes with the law of any type. It's not about being selfish, Santa, because I wouldn't have parked there if I even thought I wasn't supposed to.

But I'll throw your logic straight back at you. If there are parking restrictions for safety reasons, then do councils not owe an even bigger duty to actually ensure they keep up with their legal duties? After all, as a matter of law, if they don't comply with the relevant legislation, then their road markings are NOT a legal restriction on parking. So they ruddy well ought to keep on top of them! If it's such a breach of safety (and in this specific case, I've no idea if it is), then the council are endangering people by not fulfilling their duties.

You say you can see beyond to where it leads. Well, can you?

If were just supposed to do what councils tell us whether they obey the law or not, then that leads to autocratic and unaccountable councils that can just make it up as they go along. Or, it leads to a backlash because people fail to respect authority if that authority can't be bothered to hold itself accountable to the standards it sets itself, and that kind of contempt leads to anarchy.

We have to AGREE to be governed, and by and large we do. But if those that seek to govern are so high-handed as to think they're above the law, they don't deserve respect and are likely to increasingly fail to get it.

Councils are NOT above the law, though in the case of parking enforcement, a good few of them certainly act like it. Far from seeing the big picture. I really don't think you are. If councils want to uphold and enforce law, they need to both respect it and obey it. And in this respect, they don't.

[santa claus]

I could begin to agree to your point... if I didn't have the feeling that you are trying to be nothing more the contradictory. I would suggest taking a leaf from your own ideals but no matter how conciliatory the opposing viewpoint you seem take the opposite view, and veildly stating that the OP is selfish, ignorant and smug don't appear at all like the kind of ideals you espouse, that us selfish folks don't comprehend.

With respect that is a little unfair. I cannot help it if my view goes against the majority in this thread. I don't mean to be contradictory but I believe in my viewpoint. The discussion is also a bit broader than the OP.

you should get away with it. If i can get away with doing 130 Mph because they haven't calibrated the Laser after 1 1/2 years and all so got away with doing 60mph in a 30 because the markings on the road were not precisely 1 meter apart then what you have there is the counsel not following the law to the letter and interpreting a law in they way they see fit which is illegal. Hop-e you win and when you have stick a sign up saying you've won in court against them so others know. All so stick them as well in court for the cost of petrol and time of work and any thing else you can think off ... "It will teach them a lesson". I did it lol and won and the police came off worst as i ended up with £700 in costs as well ... lol

Well done Mayhem, well done. You stuck it to da man good an' proper. If you hang around, everyone here will high five your success. Luckily too, no one was injured so it's all good.

Far from seeing the big picture. I really don't think you are.

We see different big pictures. Yours creates Mayhem.

[Saracen]

We see different big pictures. Yours creates Mayhem.

On the contrary. Mine requires that we obey the rule of law. But that means everyone, including councils. They can't just make it up as they go along. That way lies mayhem.

I'm advocating that councils be subject to the law. You're advocating they they're above it.

[mayhem]

to be monist i was prepared to lose license but solicitor new what he was doing and got me off. TBH i was astounded but after that and i used him for the other one and again he got me off on a technicality. Personally ever since i have never speed. But i fully understand how we get screwed over by government for every little penny and in any way fashionable. Used to live in Germany and the roads are much better over there than here. Yet you don't get done over by the government every 5 min for some stupid out dated law.

The laws over there make more sense as well as there driving rules. One of the best things as well is you don't insure the car you insure the driver. its about time our government got there figure out there asses and stopped messing around trying to prop up the police and councils with create your own money scheme's all the time. Living in Co durham we lucky as our Chef of police does not believe in speed cameras and all that and the force only has 2 Vans that are used for traffic calming measures. He doest use speed cameras to prop up funding to the police. When i lived down south there were every were and they say its to help slow down the traffic in black spot areas yet why are they on a motorway when the whole motorway is a big black spot.

same with parking , here were i live there is plenty of parking "Payed for" and some none payed for, But at least if you park were your not supposed to you will know as nearly all the signs ive seen do warn you. I haven't come across so called bad lines in the last few years and if they are real bad you'll find that people never did get a ticket because even the traffic wardens knew they couldn't get away with it. (know this from a mate who works around here who does it for a living). Its a lottery game in the country depending on were you live. Its not fair on people who live in council areas who take prime advantage of the people and there mistakes.

The whole system is bull and people just put up with it and are brain washed over the years to make believe what they say is right. If you stand out the crowed then your not "Normal". Personally i'll say it over and over again the laws and rubbish, the laws can kiss my ass, and i don't give a dam.

and i do have 1 dammed good reason why i hate the law so much, but that is not for these forums.

[santa claus]

Personally i'll say it over and over again the laws and rubbish, the laws can kiss my ass, and i don't give a dam.

You were doing quite well up to this point when your whole point of view nosedived but not to worry, laws are not popular in this thread so you'll probably be revered as an heroic, kickass, law-ignoring, rebellious man-of-the- people. Now, what other laws don't you like cowboy? You may as well air all your grievances in this parking summons thread now you're on a roll.

On the contrary. Mine requires that we obey the rule of law. But that means everyone, including councils. They can't just make it up as they go along. That way lies mayhem.

I'm advocating that councils be subject to the law. You're advocating they they're above it.

Mayhem drives at life threatening speed and gets away with it because misguided social commentators indirectly support his disregard for others. He's taking you along for the ride.

Slow down Mayhem, watch out for that school crossing and all those children! You're a passenger in his car saracen...

[Saracen]

....

Mayhem drives at life threatening speed and gets away with it because misguided social commentators indirectly support his disregard for others. He's taking you along for the ride.

Slow down Mayhem, watch out for that school crossing and all those children! You're a passenger in his car saracen...

Of course I'm not a passenger in mayhem's car. If anything, you are, because what you are advocating is effectively "might is right", and an attitude that the council can do what it thinks is right and socially correct, regardless of law. You are putting the council above the law, and that principle leads to mayhem.

You are wrong legally, and you are wrong morally. Here's the situation.

The legal view

As a society, we have laws. We are expected to obey them, and are dealt with by the authorities if we don't. The laws, as passed by Parliament, define circumstances in which local councils can impose local controls such as parking restrictions, but those laws define the reasons for which local authorities can impose specified restrictions, and the impose the precise way in which those restrictions MUST be applied. If the restrictions aren't compliant with the law, then they have no legal force, and therefore the councils cannot enforce the restriction, and cannot impose a penalty. They can't impose a penalty because the penalty is for contravening the restriction and if the restriction isn't legal, then by definition no contravention can have occurred and no penalty can be enforced.

Legally, it's as simple as that. The council can make regulation to impose restrictions where they see fit, provided they do it in accordance with the laws that give them authority to do it. If they don't comply with those laws, the restrictions have about as much effect as if you'd painted the lines on the road yourself.

And given the nature of the statistics about upheld appeals, it is a cold, hard fact that the councils get it wrong far too often, and are therefore trying to penalise people for breaking a law they simply haven't broken.

My position - councils can enforce parking restrictions all they like, and levy all the penalties they like provided they act legally.

Your position - councils can do what they like provided they say they're doing it for some good purpose, and that includes penalising people that have broken no law.


The moral view

The law of the jungle, and the rule of nature, is "might is right". You can see it all over the place. You can see it in cats killing mice, and in dogs chasing cats. You can see it in lions hunting wildebeest, and you can see it in the social groupings of cats (like lions), in packs of dogs, and in just about any other group animal you can mention, from merecats to the black rhino, in how social interactions within the group (and between groups for that matter) are enforced.

Just about every specie preys on what it can, and enforces rules within the social group. Ever watch lions feeding? The big females put themselves first, and they do it with brutal efficiency. They'll allow cubs to feed, but generally they'll only do so either after they've had their fill, or if they aren't that hungry.

And that attitude is pragmatic, and about survival. The adult cats are the hunters, and they have to maintain their strength, because without that, neither they nor the cubs will survive. In other words, what appears cold and callous, in a big cat feeding before cubs, is actually a clear survival trait, and merely puts group over individual, and species over both.

Man, on the other hand, regards himself as broadly civilised. Personally, I have a few doubts about that, and I'll say that whatever civilisation we do have is most certainly not universal among our species, and even where it does apply, it's a pretty thin veneer.

Why is it a thin veneer? Well, for a start, because we have a system of laws. These are designed to ensure protection and welfare for all, in theory at least. But what choice do we have, as individuals, in whether we abide by those laws or not? Can I, or you, as an individual, say "No, I don't like that, so I'm not doing it?"

I'm not asking should we be allowed to do that, but can we opt out? And the answer, clearly, is "no". The laws apply to you and me alike, whether we like it or not, whether we agree with them or not, and if you break them and get caught, you will be punished.

How, in principal, does that differ from the pack rules of dogs or pride rules of lions? They enforce social rules by force, and so do we. The only difference is that we have thought about rules and are seeking to protect the weak and innocent, and to break "might is right". But we defeat the might is right attitude of the individual, by trumping it with the idea that the might of the society is right and will deal with ANY individual that breaks the laws, and by "individual", I mean any corporate individual, or governmental individual, and well as human individuals.

In other words, society rules by might, but does it on the presumption of basic and fundamental principle of fairness. But it also imposes that rules on the individual whether the individual agrees to it or not. That's the contract - we get ruled, like it or not, but for that, we get ruled fairly.

That's the thin veneer I talked about - we still use the might is right principle, and all that differs is that we like to think we have a better social conscience.

And as soon as we start in with the principles that those that we appoint to rule us don't have to follow the rule of law, that contract is broken.

How do laws work? Either they work because people respect them, or they work because people fear the consequences should they break them. If people are treated unfairly, if they are penalised when they haven't broken them, by an authority that doesn't bother to obey them themselves, what example does that authority set? The message is that it's fear of consequences that matter, and that respect for law doesn't because if councils respected the law (on this matter) that wouldn't be breaking it so comprehensively, would they?

So, if councils adopt the attitude that you don't need to respect the law, why should individuals feel they need to respect it?

Santa, the fact that councils demonstrably (by appeal statistics) do little more than pay lip service to the law, and feel they can impose the penalties without complying with the mandatory requirements imposed on them is exactly the principle that those you are railing against adopt. If people park where they "shouldn't", then they're showing no regard for the general good. They're saying, effectively, that I'll park there because I don't expect to get caught, or because I know I can squeeze through a technicality if I get "caught". And the attitude of the council, if they seek to penalise people without bothering to obey the law themselves is exactly the same - mere lip service to the law.

Councils lose all moral authority to apply the law if they don't bother to follow it themselves.



Santa, nowhere have I said that I feel it's okay to park on areas that should be restricted if only the council bothered to do their job properly. What I've said is that it is utterly unacceptable for councils to seek to penalise people that haven't broken the law, and as a matter of cold hard fact, if the requirements of the legislation on how bays have to be marked and/or signed aren't met, then people simply haven't broken the law.

If this were a matter of the odd case here and there, where a few people were sneaking out of obligations by a technicality, then I'd not be moaning about this. The issue, to me, is that the statistic show quite clearly that councils are acting outside to law, nationally and on a fairly impressive scale. They aren't just getting it wrong on occasion. They're getting it wrong far, FAR too often. And that's a systemic problem.

In my opinion, the reason it;s a system problem is that there's no downside for councils. They can impose tickets illegally and get paid a fair bit of the time. They can deny appeals and get apid another proportion of the time. If someone goes as far as appealing all the way to an adjudicator and wins, it's often the case that the council simply don't bother to show up at the appeal.

So, they impose tickets where they have no legal authority to do so and get paid. But when they get it wrong, there's no downside at all. If there was a reasonable level of penalty on the council for getting it wrong, then they'd have a good motivation for not getting it wrong so often, wouldn't they? And to do that, all they need to do is to maintain lines and signs as legally required, and to give serious consideration to appeals and not just reject them almost as a matter of rote.

If they do that, then far fewer appeals will get heard, because far fewer people will have a "technicality" to squeeze though, and the appeal stats will drop. Oh, and by the way, if parking restrictions are genuinely enforced, then there's an even better motivation for people to not try it on, because they'll know that the chances of getting away with it are much less.

Ideally, I'd like a totally foolproof system where if you parked illegally, you got a ticket 100% of the time. The one thing that will cause people to obey laws 100% of the time (or very nearly 100% anyway) is if they KNOW that they'll be caught and punished. Who in their right mind takes a chance even in parking illegally for a few minutes if they know a substantial fine will result?

So let's see councils reducing those appeal statistics by applying rules harshly, by all means, by at all costs, legally.

At the moment, the seem to be using the blunderbuss approach. They show contempt for following the law themselves, and clobber people that haven't actually broken the law (unless they're determined enough to appeal), and just grab up the money. If people bother with the adjudicator appeals, then a lot of the time, the council don't even bother to show up. They just write that one off. And why not? After all, they get paid most of the time, whether it's legally imposed or not.

No Santa, it's the council, as an enforcement authority, showing contempt for the law that leads to mayhem, because why should everyone else respect either the law the intent of the council if the council don't show either the law or us any respect?

And old biblical principle applies ..... let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Let the council sort their own act out and follow the law. Then, they'll have a legal right to impose fines as well as a presumably good reason for doing so. But without that, people will show the system no respect and only follow it if they think they'll get caught.

[santa claus]

......epic post removed to save space.....

Thanks for that it's quite a post, although with respect, a fair bit of it has already been covered earlier in the thread.

Yamangman said earlier that I post simply to contradict and with that in mind, although we cannot completely reconcile, I'll just accept our continuing differences especially as some of our views seem more in alignment in your latest post.

However, a civilised society does not rule by 'might', it rules by consent.

The rules of the road exist because we consent to them. We all know that rules are needed to protect the values of civility and to prevent those who would impose their own selfish rules; like your big cat who is first to eat, every time, all of the time. Rules even out the inequality of jungle law.

I don't see the Council from an 'us and them' point of view either. The Council administers laws that I want and agree with. I know the laws are reasonable and I know that supporting them is a duty upon everyone who chooses to live closely with others, enjoying all the benefits that that brings.

This does not bestow power to the Council that cannot be challenged but it does make the Council (and police) the guardians of the law of which we are all part architect, so I respect rules (that I find easy enough to comply with) even if they are not marked with paint. I wouldn't block your drive or park in your lane or drive across the local football field or park in any area where I think it will inconvenience others even if the Council hadn't been explicit about the rule. It can remain unwritten as far as I'm concerned. And if I see a worn line, I still see a rule.

Working with the Council and police to maintain the fairness we expect and accepting that every line, sign, light, park facility, rubbish collection rota etc etc cannot be perfect all of the time will improve things for us all. They work for us, not against us or to persecute us; if they have more time to do what we pay them for, we'll feel the benefit. If we keep bleating after we've paid them, we're wasting our own money.

I think that's me done on this one

[floppybootstomp]

Saracen, he speak sense.

Santa Claus will never understand.

'There Ain't No Santa Claus On The Evening Stage'

- Song title, Captain Beefheart album 'Clear Spot' 1972.

Truth.

Of course we trust those in authority.

They have our interests at heart, don't they.

Of course, of course.

Sometimes, I really feel a little sad for some people.

[Saracen]

Thanks for that it's quite a post, although with respect, a fair bit of it has already been covered earlier in the thread. ...

Indeed. I basically restated the argument without a lot of the detail and diversions.

.....

Yamangman said earlier that I post simply to contradict and with that in mind, although we cannot completely reconcile, I'll just accept our continuing differences especially as some of our views seem more in alignment in your latest post. ....

My view hasn't changed, but maybe I've explained it better. That's why I rehashed it, to try to give a coherent overview.

.... However, a civilised society does not rule by 'might', it rules by consent. ....

How? If you don't consent, what can you do about it? Pick a law, and then decline to consent to it. Will you still be held to account, punished and, if serious enough a law and breach, deprived of your liberty if you break it? How many of those in jail are there by choice? How many have genuinely consented to be governed, and how many are locked up if they break the law, whether they consent to being jailed or not?

Sorry, Santa, but I don't agree with you. We are ruled by might, and the entire principle of a police force is for the state to use force when necessary, even if in these PR times, they changed the name to the police service. That's exactly and precisely what "arrest" is .... being detained by force, against your will, with force either by threat if that's sufficient, but by physical application if the threat proves inadequate to the job. If a policeman "arrests" you, try telling him you don't consent and try to walk off. You'll find out just how much your consent matters.

It's not overtly stated, Santa, but we do indeed live by rule of might, the might of the state. That's what laws are - rules that WILL be enforced if they need to be. And let's face it - if we didn't need that application of force to backstop rules, we wouldn't need the rules. Take parking. If people didn't park in daft places, we wouldn't need laws telling us we can't park in daft places or punishments if we do it anyway.

Oh, and our method of rule by force is not, by and large, something I object to, for one simple reason. For all that being ruled by force and not consent is morally objectionable, it has one thing to commend it - like democracy, it's the worst thing known to mankind, except for all the alternatives. But, nonetheless, rule by force it is.

The rules of the road exist because we consent to them. We all know that rules are needed to protect the values of civility and to prevent those who would impose their own selfish rules; like your big cat who is first to eat, every time, all of the time. Rules even out the inequality of jungle law.

The rules of the road exist because we have, whether we agree to it or not, a societal structure that imposed them. I suppose it depends what you mean by "rules of the road", though. If you're talking about "rules" that determine courteous driving, like letting people out of side roads into a queue of traffic, then I'd agree, they're by consent .... and not everybody does it. If you means laws of the road, then again, while they're probably in our best interests and are certainly created with that intent, they're imposed by force. They need to be imposed by force. If that wasn't necessary, we wouldn't have traffic laws because we wouldn't need them. But need them we do.

I don't see the Council from an 'us and them' point of view either. The Council administers laws that I want and agree with. I know the laws are reasonable and I know that supporting them is a duty upon everyone who chooses to live closely with others, enjoying all the benefits that that brings. ....

Nor do I see the council as them and us, other than in the obvious sense and I'm me and everybody else is a "they".

I don't object to what the council is trying to do with parking restrictions, Santa. I object to how they're doing it some of the time. A lot of tickets that are issued are probably well-deserved, and paid without valid objection. It's the rest that bother me.

I don't object to parking restrictions, and I don't object to them being enforced. And, like you, I behave sensibly and responsibly whether it's a law to do so or not.

But I do expect councils to behave lawfully, and enforcing restrictions that aren't legally valid isn't reasonable. When it comes to their attention, as in G4Z's case (remember the comments by the parking warden), instead of digging their heels in and insisting on being paid when they have no legal right, they should void the ticket as it wasn't legally enforceable, and repaint the damn lines so that nobody else gets away with it.

All I expect of councils is that they act legally. Do that, and they have my 100% support to enforce, and fine. And i wish them every success. But they DO need to act legally. And the appeal stats show that they aren't, in far too many cases. That is my issue.

...
This does not bestow power to the Council that cannot be challenged but it does make the Council (and police) the guardians of the law of which we are all part architect, so I respect rules (that I find easy enough to comply with) even if they are not marked with paint. I wouldn't block your drive or park in your lane or drive across the local football field or park in any area where I think it will inconvenience others even if the Council hadn't been explicit about the rule. It can remain unwritten as far as I'm concerned. And if I see a worn line, I still see a rule.

Nor would I park across a driveway, or where I saw a line, whether it was broken or not, legal or not. I respect the rules and, moreover, the intent of the rules, not just the letter of them.

My argument has never been that we should park there because the line's worn. I wouldn't do so. My argument has been that the council can't fine people for breaking a law if that person hadn't broken the law and, if the line requirements aren't up to the law, they haven't broken it. I respect those lines whether they're legal or not, and I simply expect the council to obey the laws too.

...

Working with the Council and police to maintain the fairness we expect and accepting that every line, sign, light, park facility, rubbish collection rota etc etc cannot be perfect all of the time will improve things for us all. They work for us, not against us or to persecute us; if they have more time to do what we pay them for, we'll feel the benefit. If we keep bleating after we've paid them, we're wasting our own money.

The thing is, Santa, nobody ever said that either the police or council are perfect, or that they have to maintain standards of perfection. Either councils or police are, at the end of it, simply a collection of humans and we all make mistakes.

But that doesn't mean we just assume that everything either the police or council do is just fine and dandy because they're working for us and have good intentions. It's precisely because they're human and liable to make mistakes that we have to be aware of what they do in our name, and we're abnegating our responsibility as members of society if we don't stand up when they get it wrong, and say "Oi .... that's wrong".

And when they penalise people for breaking a law when it hasn't been broken, they ARE getting it wrong.

If if was an isolated case, here and there, I wouldn't have said anything much if anything at all in this thread. But it isn't. I mean, 94% of appeals overturned against some councils, and 68% nationally outside London. That's the travesty - that the problem is so large it HAS to be systemic.

That's why we owe a duty to ourselves to squeal about it. If we're going to be governed, by consent or by force, we not only can but should squeal when the system goes wrong. Then, the system can be put right.

..... I think that's me done on this one

We'll see.

[floppybootstomp]

'Abnegating'

I say, now there's a word I haven't come across before and I thought I was a fairly clever so-and-so.

Now then..... Google...... Dictionary....

[santa claus]

Sometimes, I really feel a little sad for some people.

What an absolute relief to be regarded as 'sad' by the resident rebel without a cause. However, might I suggest a name change? Floppybootstomp is too long to type and less memorable than, say, AK47 or Uzi which also seem more succinctly descriptive of your apparent preference for democracy South American style?

Go on you ol' badass anarchist you; you know you want to let that goddam Council eat lead . Get the camo string vest on and go get 'em.

I don't know what 'abnegating' means; could you tell me as your version is sure to be entirely different to that in the Dictionary? Ta.


Saracen - the dissection of my every word is flattering but if you re-read what you've written you will find much of your post is repeated from my earlier posts .