just had a court summons!

[floppybootstomp]

This is becoming dangerously close to muck slinging and name calling isn't it? Ok, I guess I may have prompted the lowering of standards with the use of the word 'sad' which was actually directed at 'some people' and not one specific individual but if the cap fits, wear it.

Let me try and describe where I'm coming from. Simply because I question authority and will not blindly accept judgement and actions from some quarters, does not mean I'm an anarchist nor rebel without a pause.

I have paid parking fines recently and as mentioned before, I accidentally drove in a bus lane and paid the fine without question. I did question one parking fine where I was parked in a loading bay where I was actually unloading goods. I was there for ten minutes which admittedly was longer than needed to load three bulky boxes.

So I wrote a letter, my plea for clemency was rejected so I gave up and paid up. That was outside Richer Sounds in Bromley, Kent so if anybody here ever travels there by car - beware.

Parking restrictions are there for good reasons, as are bus lanes. I respect local laws and travel restrictions, pay my fines if I'm stupid enough to park illegally and consider myself an honest, considerate and caring member of society. Hardly a rebel or anarchist.

The difference, basically, between you and I is you seem to think society, particularly local councils, are never wrong, are only there to serve us all and generally tell us which is right and wrong.

The figures produced elsewhere in this thread relating to appeals over parking fines suggest otherwise and that, and my own past experiences, is why I take the stance I do.

So yes, when somebody battles a council over parking fines and wins, be it on a technicality or other reason, I celebrate and feel good for the victor.

In my view there are some areas of local councils where the actions they take are almost criminal, they are certainly despicable and very below the belt. I cite the appeals percentages quoted elsewhere in this thread again.

I'll give you this much Santa Claus, you're certainly different, I honestly don't think I've ever encountered an inividual who would support a local authority in an instance such as the one that started this thread.

And as for the word 'abnegating' why are you asking me? I've already stated I don't know what it means so if I were to offer you my understanding of the word, I would just quote verbatim from a dictionary definition.

Therefore you're wrong to imagine my definition would differ from the true meaning.

And I really must look that word up actually, it's good to expand one's vocabulary.

[Saracen]

.....

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 .

It absolutely is not repeating your posts. I'm reiterating what I said, not what you read into it. We are closer together than you seem to have thought, on some aspects of this issue, right through this thread. I have never said I supported irresponsible parking, or that I supported parking where there were lines that indicated you shouldn't park there. What I have said is that if the council doesn't comply with the law, they can't then penalise people if they do park there. Just because you can doesn't mean I think you should. But, if you legally can, and do, the council has no right to use legal enforcement against people that aren't acting illegally. It is not illegal to act unsociably. So, right from the start, it's been my position that if councils want to enforce parking restrictions, they MUST maintain them to within the standard the law requires. If they don't, it's dereliction of duty and to then try to force penalties on people is abhorrent.

And that you "can" isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. The council MUST comply with the law for parking penalties to be legal. If they don't comply with the law, then the penalties aren't legal and aren't enforceable ..... as shown by the success rates of appeals to the adjudicator.

So my issue with the councils is that when such a situation arises, the council should cancel the ticket, precisely because it's not been legally issued. But, far too often, they instead try to maintain it should be paid, and reject not one but two objections. Only when it gets to an independent adjudicator does anyone actually take any notice of what the law says.


You have asserted repeatedly that I'm advocating some kind of mayhem. In fact, what I;m advocating is that EVERYBODY obeys they law. You, on the other hand, are asserting that councils can act illegally, can issue penalties where no breach of the law has existed, can somehow decide that because it's silly to park somewhere that they are entitled to punish people. They aren't.

I've asked several questions of you that have been pointedly ignored, so I'll ask then again.

1) How does me arguing that everybody obey the law amount to being a 'passenger in a car to mayhem'? How does advocating we all obey laws amount to leading to mayhem?

2) If you support councils being able to impose penalties with no legal right to do so, then where does a council's right to do whatever they think stop? When is it right to act illegally, but become wrong to act illegally? If a council can act ultra-vires on one thing, why can't it do so on another? So, instead of councils acting within the law, they can make it up as they go along. Perhaps that includes forcing entry to our homes to see if we're recycling enough? Perhaps it includes banging us up in some domestic form of Guantanamo Camp X-Ray if we're deemed environmental terrorist when that search reveals that someone put a glass bottle in their general rubbish instead of the glass recycling container? If they can act ultra-vires on parking enforcement, why not on other things, up to and including such extremes as those? We all, including councils, need to act within the law, or we are risking being on a slippery to slope to ..... erm .... mayhem like that. So why do you support councils acting outside the law?

3) The appeal statistics show, quite clearly, that councils are getting it wrong on a high percentage of cases. If, like Westminster, they manage to reject two appeals so that a case ends up before an independent (legally qualified) adjudicator, and then 94% of the time their wrong, how can you feel that the system doesn't need looking at if they get it wrong 94% of the time? But, ignoring extreme cases like Westminster, councils outside London get it wrong 68% of the time. If councils are getting overturned 68% of the time in appeals, nationally, then they;re getting it wrong far too often. The system simply isn't working properly. Nobody expects them to get it right 100% of the time, as your use of "perfect" seems to suggest. Obviously, mistakes will be made. But when they get it wrong more than two thirds of the time, it's gone way past being not "perfect". So, how do you justify a council being able to be legally in the wrong 69% of the time, trying to enforce penalties on people that, however thoughtless or antisocial their parking may have been, was not illegal?


You've characterised me as supporting mayhem. I do not, and never said or implied that. You've characterised me as expecting "perfection", and yet I never said or implied that either.

Yet all through this, you've ignored that your position supports councils acting illegally and not justified it. You've ignored those appeal stats. I told you earlier, I think you're wrong legally and wrong morally. Not about everything, and as I've said several times, I don't support parking in silly or irresponsible places, despite the way you've tried to paint it as if I did. What you are doing, though, is moving the goalposts every time I deal with one of your issues and trying a different tack.


Me echoing your words? The hell I am.

[Saracen]

This is becoming dangerously close to muck slinging and name calling isn't it? .....

It is a bit in places, and it needs to stop. Everybody, argue the issues without name-calling, either directly or by inference.

And I really must look that word up actually, it's good to expand one's vocabulary.

To deny to oneself, or to renounce.

[santa claus]

This is becoming dangerously close to muck slinging and name calling isn't it? Ok, I guess I may have prompted the lowering of standards with the use of the word 'sad' which was actually directed at 'some people' and not one specific individual but if the cap fits, wear it.

Yes, you're right. My comment was a defensive reaction and I apologise if the smiley didn't convey it in the light-hearted terms it is meant. To be fair, you seem a decent enough bloke but 2 people will never agree on absolutely everything eh?

Back on topic. I don't think Councils are always right; they are human after all.

As for being different, I suppose I'm just fed up of the merry-go-round that ties up the services we've paid for. There's no answer though, people being the way they are. It all seems faintly ridiculous to me how many rules are needed just so we can live together.

You have asserted repeatedly that I'm advocating some kind of mayhem.

No, not mayhem..

the laws can kiss my ass, and i don't give a dam

mayhem^^

At this point I'm going to abnee..no adbengate...no abnegoat...I'm giving up! I am beaten by attrition .

Me echoing your words? The hell I am.

Hrhrhrhrhr!

[Saracen]

....

As for being different, I suppose I'm just fed up of the merry-go-round that ties up the services we've paid for. There's no answer though, people being the way they are. It all seems faintly ridiculous to me how many rules are needed just so we can live together. .....

I don't like tying up services either, but I can't see how we can excuse them being so sloppy in how they do the job for us as to let those appeal stats get to the point they've got to.

That's why I said, ages ago, that when a ticket like G4Zs comes in, especially with the comments from the warden about how the line was "nearly invisible", the correct resposne (IMHO) fromn the council would have been :-

1) Void the ticket
2) Take the warning, and repaint the line.

Surely, if councils take objections to tickets seriously, they'd consider the ground given for objecting. Some, sure, will be people trying it on. But especially when the warden makes that kind of remark, I simply can't see how it ever got to the point where it's going from council to adjudicator?

Seriously, Santa, given that it needs to be objected (twice, as I understand it) before it goes to an adjudicator, how can it be that so many appeals succeed? How can councils be not spotting that they're wrong, in such a high percentage? 68% is bad enough, but 94%? I can't see how they can manage that unless they're either raving incompetents, or (again IMHO) much more likely, not actually really considering the objections and just rubber-stamping them as denied?

And if they are either rubber-stamping the denials, or are raving incompetents, the system isn't working.

Can you come up with a credible justification for that 68%, let alone 94%, because I certainly can't. If you can, I'd love to hear it, because I can't imagine what could justify them penalising people illegally so high a percentage of the time?


As for how many rules we need, well there I completely agree. If people were like you, Santa, we'd need few if any. I hope, if they were like me, too. But it's a sad fact that some aren't. Some will abuse things even if rules are there, given half a chance, and that's why we not only need rules, but enforcement. But if we're going to enforce rules, they need to be enforced legally and within the law themselves. Anything else is hypocrisy.

[mayhem]

Lol at some of the comments above.

Im glad such new words to me are being used (i have to google as well).

a small peace from me.

Each person is a individual, each person is allowed they opinion (to a point as long as it doesn't offend to Much). You all grown up and you decided in you own mind what is right or wrong. Some times things happen in life that will change the way you think. Some times thouse things are so big that your whole out look on life changes.

1 thing is for sure no government , no council , no authority is perfect. You cannot please all the people all the time.

Fight if you believe you are right and challenge if you think some thing is incorrect.

No one is perfect and that is life, if we were wouldn't life be simpler yet boring.

Personally again i wish the op luck and hope he wins. that is my point of view.

[santa claus]

Lol at some of the comments above......

Heehee, fair enough mayhem

And if they are either rubber-stamping the denials, or are raving incompetents, the system isn't working.

Well, for the Council it's a win/win. If you're booked and you pay up, they 'win'. If you're booked 'falsely' (and we've debated the meaning of that to death) and you win, they don't really lose.

What's more, even if they do lose, the inconvenience (and perhaps worry) of the challenge, just like G4Z's, is probably enough to put you off in future, so they sort of win again. If you win and they have to pay you (unlikely) the Council simply use our money in the form of tax to pay the bill. There is a strong psychology at work even if ticketing would sometimes appear an apparent failure.

I don't mean this to sound defeatist, and Floppy might be surprised to hear that I won't be pushed around by officialdom if I feel I am being treated unreasonably, but the system is a juggernaut that won't be altered by any Government and if I, you, Floppy, G4Z or whoever was in charge I can't see how we could create a more democratically fair system, especially as there is a safety dimension in parking to consider.

And safety is the crucial factor.

How would we feel Saracen if we were to witness a toddler lying in the street in the rain because he/she had been unsighted by those who choose to park for their own convenience? I would hang my head in shame. This is what drives my opinion; the responsibility to consider others and to not rely on perfectly painted lines to guide us.

"The Council hadn't repainted the line so fair's fair on the bloke who parked there". Lousy epitaph eh?

[staffsMike]

How would we feel Saracen if we were to witness a toddler lying in the street in the rain because he/she had been unsighted by those who choose to park for their own convenience? I would hang my head in shame. This is what drives my opinion; the responsibility to consider others and to not rely on perfectly painted lines to guide us.

"The Council hadn't repainted the line so fair's fair on the bloke who parked there". Lousy epitaph eh?

I've been ignoring this for a while but are we still talking about G4Z or hypertheticals again, because G4Z was parked in a legitimate space as far as I remember, so if it wasn't G4Z in it, it would have been someone else.. so the above bares no relevance to the situation in question.

In the unlikely case that something like that actually happens then of course you would feel guilty if it were your car doing the blocking.. but if the line isn't painted or the restrictions aren't made clear then it's not really the drivers fault imo.

[Saracen]

Well, for the Council it's a win/win. If you're booked and you pay up, they 'win'. If you're booked 'falsely' (and we've debated the meaning of that to death) and you win, they don't really lose.

What's more, even if they do lose, the inconvenience (and perhaps worry) of the challenge, just like G4Z's, is probably enough to put you off in future, so they sort of win again. If you win and they have to pay you (unlikely) the Council simply use our money in the form of tax to pay the bill. There is a strong psychology at work even if ticketing would sometimes appear an apparent failure.

And I've said that in earlier posts.

The thing is, they're levying an ILLEGAL charge, and then just washing their hands of it. And doing it in large numbers. When they do this, councils aren't following the law, they're abusing the enforcement powers given to them.

It's precisely why the council need to bear costs if they do this and get it wrong. Otherwise, there's every incentive for them to abuse the process like this, and no incentive to treat objections seriously. Councils are abusing the whole point of having a process if the just rubber-stamp objections, and if that is the case, have no justification in having an enforcement role at all. Perhaps it needs to be taken away from them, if they aren't going to treat the law with respect. And if they don't, or won't, why should they expect anyone else to. If we all just emulate the council's attitude, we can all treat the law with contempt, just as they are doing over this. And that way lies mayhem, and anarchy.

Or are you suggesting that their justification for issuing tickets illegally is that the ends justify the means? If so, that's a very slippery slope.

I don't mean this to sound defeatist, and Floppy might be surprised to hear that I won't be pushed around by officialdom if I feel I am being treated unreasonably, but the system is a juggernaut that won't be altered by any Government and if I, you, Floppy, G4Z or whoever was in charge I can't see how we could create a more democratically fair system, especially as there is a safety dimension in parking to consider.

And safety is the crucial factor.

How would we feel Saracen if we were to witness a toddler lying in the street in the rain because he/she had been unsighted by those who choose to park for their own convenience? I would hang my head in shame. This is what drives my opinion; the responsibility to consider others and to not rely on perfectly painted lines to guide us.

"The Council hadn't repainted the line so fair's fair on the bloke who parked there". Lousy epitaph eh?

We'd create a more democratic system if councils followed the law. We'd create a more democratic system if they treated appeals seriously rather than rubber-stamping rejections. We'd have a more democratic system if councils heeded the inference of objections, and repainted the lines if they're worn. We'd have a more democratic system is councils actually followed the law, rather than making it up and trying to apply enforcement action against innocent people. We'd have a more democratic system even if government changed the law to let councils do as they are doing.

But right now, councils are not acting legally. That much is clear from those appeal stats. And if councils really are levying these charges when they have no legal right to do so, and then rubber-stamping denials of objections rather than seriously considering each case on it's merits, then they really are trying to rule by force, not by any form of consent, because they're not following the law, they're setting themselves up not just as judge and jury, but as both law-maker and appeal court too. And such action is both undemocratic and thoroughly obnoxious.

Councils are there to act as law-makers. They're there to administer local laws, as set up by statute, not to create their own justice.


And as for the toddler scenario, which clearly is a deliberately heart-rending one, my reaction would be this .... the bloke that parked where a line was, and in G4Z's case, in the words of the traffic warden "virtually no visible yellow line", might well not have parked there if the line had been properly visible. We certainly can't assume he would have parked there had the line been correct, and signs been present.

So the driver night well only have parked there because the line wasn't maintained. What's the council's excuse?

If anyone is to blame for that toddler (though I'd also question what the parents were doing if a toddler was wandering around at the roadside), it's the council for not doing their job, for not fulfilling their duty (and they DO have one) to maintain the roads.

And, just perhaps, they're not doing their duty precisely because they don't have to. They just slap tickets on people, then rubber stamp rejections. So why bother actually doing their job? Well, you've answered why they SHOULD maintain lines, haven't you? Because it might well be a safety issue, and a toddler might get hurt or killed because they didn't.

Councils have powers, like enforcing fines. But they have the responsibilities that goes with that, like maintaining safety markings. And they aren't doing it.

[santa claus]

-------

-------

Help! I'm trapped in Groundhog Day.

[staffsMike]

Sorry but the melodrama didn't do anything for me.

Now if there was a sign that says, "beware of toddlers lying in the ditch, don't obsure with your car".. but it was faded so only some of the words were visible.. I might be more forgiving to the parking standards. However, just a broken line on the road.. all previous arguements stand.

[santa claus]

....but if the line isn't painted or the restrictions aren't made clear then it's not really the drivers fault imo.

I'll try to do better with the mellodrama

"Hi, having a barbie are we? Luvverly day for it, mind if I come in? Nice place you have here but all those kiddies toys must drive you mad eh? Say, who's that in the picture, she looks familiar. Oh, it's your daughter, when was that taken? Last week at half term? Right. And who's this? Oh, your eldest. She looks familiar too. Yep, I remember now, I saw them both today. Your youngest walked into the road right by my car. She's tiny isn't she?

What's that? Why was I parked in the restricted zone?

Well, the line isn't painted properly so I nipped in sharpish. It's really handy as it means I didn't have to walk far to work. Shame about your little girl. I'd get in touch with the Council as it's not my fault....."

Fault isn't the issue.

[Saracen]

......

What's that? Why was I parked in the restricted zone?

Well, the line isn't painted properly so I nipped in sharpish. It's really handy as it means I didn't have to walk far to work. Shame about your little girl. I'd get in touch with the Council as it's not my fault....."

Fault isn't the issue.

Oh, but fault is the issue.

Look at those lines. It isn't a line that wasn't "perfectly painted". It's that, in the words of the traffic warden, there was "virtually no visible yellow line". That hasn't happened in the last five minutes, or even in the last few weeks. It's the work of months, maybe years. And if there's virtually no line, and no sign (which is also mandatory), then it isn't a restricted bay. However you want to regard it, it ISN'T.

But it would be if the council did their job.

The system isn't working, if this is allowed to happen, and the reason it isn't working is that complacent councils are content to just rake in the filthy lucre, and not bother actually maintaining the road markings .... or do a proper job with appeals.

The system isn't working, and if councils were held to account, maybe it would. And then that bay would be properly maintained, and your mythical toddler would be just fine. After all, councils are liable for maintaining pavements too, and the fact that they are likely to get sued for negligence if they know of a problem and don't fix it and someone gets hurt as a result ..... well, as if by magic, if you report that type of a problem, where it might cost them money, they'll be a crew repairing it promptly .... and in my experience, usually next day. It seems that if you want to get councils to do their job, you have to threaten their budget. That gets their attention right quick. But as there's no downside for them in road markings, they're content to ignore their duty, and put your toddler at risk as a result. Just so long as they can try to gouge fines out of innocent people, then it's alright, then.

[Transmitthis]

Indeed, but the context of Santa's posts throughout this thread have been about parking tickets enforced by councils, and I've referred again and again to the disgusting rates of appeals that are overturned when it gets past councils.

The Content of Santas Posts have been about parking tickets enforced by councils...
The Context is more morally complex and led me to my question

You said ...

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.

I posted a purely academic question, that occurred to me after reading this thread.
I then stated that it was just academic and nothing to do with the council, I also apologized if you misunderstood.
And yet you come back with the above post? and try and argue with me about things I stated I have no interest in.
Sorry for posting a single question that you decided affronted you and needs to be argued into submission.
I will not post again, as you will undoubtedly need to quote this and then pick it apart. Much better to let you have the last post as it seems to mean more to your esteem

[santa claus]

,,,,,,The system isn't working, if this is allowed to happen, and the reason it isn't working is that complacent councils are content to just rake in the filthy lucre, and not bother actually maintaining the road markings .... or do a proper job with appeals.

Inconsiderate parking can lead to danger for others. I imagine that maintaining a road network and sustaining the standard of other shared facilities is a rolling programme of works; a bit like painting the Forth Bridge. As soon as you get to the end, you have to start again and you would have to do it within the constraint of your budget and in order of assessed priority. Now, the invading Roman legions couldn't maintain a highway to perfection all of the time despite the utter dedication of their workforce and limitless materials (and they didn't have to worry about parking, lighting, signs, pavements, hedgerows, kerbs, electrical cables, rubbish collection, grass cutting and court appearances), so it's reasonable to assume the Council will be behind on some jobs but ahead on others. The jobs on which they are behind appear to be a field day for the unscrupulous who would exploit it as an opportunity.

I don't think people should be looking to take this advantage.

Goldy Looking Chain had a song something like "Guns don't kill people, rappers do". Well, the Council provide facilities and it is the misuse of those facilities that could end up with people being killed. The trigger is being pulled by the abuser not the Council. Even if there is an argument (that I don't accept) that the Council is loading the gun, the actual crime would not take place if the gun isn't fired. Guilty, m'lud.

Just a quick word to G4Z here in case he's following the thread: please understand my comments relate to the broader principles of parking and are not directed at your specific case.

The Content of Santas Posts have been about parking tickets enforced by councils...
The Context is more morally complex and led me to my question

Precisely. Btw, please don't be disappointed or annoyed by Saracen's posts, it's just his way. He likes a good old rumble .

[Saracen]

The Content of Santas Posts have been about parking tickets enforced by councils...
The Context is more morally complex and led me to my question



I posted a purely academic question, that occurred to me after reading this thread.
I then stated that it was just academic and nothing to do with the council, I also apologized if you misunderstood.
And yet you come back with the above post? and try and argue with me about things I stated I have no interest in.
Sorry for posting a single question that you decided affronted you and needs to be argued into submission.
I will not post again, as you will undoubtedly need to quote this and then pick it apart. Much better to let you have the last post as it seems to mean more to your esteem

It's a discussion forum, not a private exchange. You haven't damaged my esteem at all and you aren't being argued into submission. But just as you have a right to express an opinion, so do I, and I don't need your permission.

If that's your attitude, then feel free to not post again.