Thousands call for spy cars to be scrapped (From Southend Standard)

RICH:;CAROL wrote:
Keep the cars but scrap the drivers.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Southend has a population close to 175,000, so a 2,400 signature petition ain't saying much.
What's the betting the 'thousands' are all people who were caught parking illegally?

Keep the Parking Enforcement cars, they're doing a great job.

smiffy1980 wrote:
dont park where you shouldnt and you wont get a ticket will you.... What difference does it make if you have these cars or people patrols?

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

smiffy1980 wrote:
dont park where you shouldnt and you wont get a ticket will you.... What difference does it make if you have these cars or people patrols?

People don't like the cars because the cars cover a wider area and catch more illegal parkers. A warden on foot doesn't.

That's the ONLY reason people want rid of the cars - they don't want to get caught parking illegally.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Southend has a population close to 175,000, so a 2,400 signature petition ain't saying much. What's the betting the 'thousands' are all people who were caught parking illegally? Keep the Parking Enforcement cars, they're doing a great job.

Smartguy wrote:
The Secretary of State for Transport issued Statutory Guidance five years ago that every parking enforcement authority is required to follow. It states very clearly that enforcement by CCTV methods should be used ONLY where it is NOT POSSIBLE to conduct enforcement by officers on foot.

The fashionable use of these CCTV enforcement vehicles is wrong because in nearly every case it is perfectly possible to conduct enforcement on foot as it has been before these repugnant cars were introduced.

After a root and branch examination of their entire enforcement operations and their objectives the London Borough of Richmond took their CCTV cars off the road permanently for the reason that it was considered an objectionable form of enforcement .

Southend should do the same. NOW

Smartguy wrote:
The Secretary of State for Transport issued Statutory Guidance five years ago that every parking enforcement authority is required to follow. It states very clearly that enforcement by CCTV methods should be used ONLY where it is NOT POSSIBLE to conduct enforcement by officers on foot. The fashionable use of these CCTV enforcement vehicles is wrong because in nearly every case it is perfectly possible to conduct enforcement on foot as it has been before these repugnant cars were introduced. After a root and branch examination of their entire enforcement operations and their objectives the London Borough of Richmond took their CCTV cars off the road permanently for the reason that it was considered an objectionable form of enforcement . Southend should do the same. NOW

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: Southend has a population close to 175,000, so a 2,400 signature petition ain't saying much. What's the betting the 'thousands' are all people who were caught parking illegally? Keep the Parking Enforcement cars, they're doing a great job.

Quite right. Rather than scrapping the cars they should be buying another one.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

smiffy1980 wrote:
dont park where you shouldnt and you wont get a ticket will you.... What difference does it make if you have these cars or people patrols?

People don't like the cars because the cars cover a wider area and catch more illegal parkers. A warden on foot doesn't.

That's the ONLY reason people want rid of the cars - they don't want to get caught parking illegally.

WhateverS wrote:
Get a van and you can park where you like for 20 mins free I've often been caught by these cars but cause its a van they can't do nowt lol

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
"Councils don't give a hoot about motorists - apart from seperating (sic) them from their money." £65,000,000 for the Sadlers Farm upgrade. £25,000,000 more spent improving Progress Road, Cuckoo Corner and Vic Circus. Seems to me local councils care quite a lot about motorists.

Rochford Rob wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
"Councils don't give a hoot about motorists - apart from seperating (sic) them from their money." £65,000,000 for the Sadlers Farm upgrade. £25,000,000 more spent improving Progress Road, Cuckoo Corner and Vic Circus. Seems to me local councils care quite a lot about motorists.

And just how much is taken in road duty and then fuel tax and then VAT on top of that? Any road 'improvements' are paid for from that with plenty of change to spare - the rest is wasted on benefit bludgers and subsidising council houses.

Probably.

Apart from riding a bike and spotting typos, what is it you actually do?

Not very much I doubt. Typical chippy envious leftie.

Now since I and many other seem to pay throught the nose for the roads, the least you could do as a cyclist is cough up. Or shut up. Preferably.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Rochford Rob wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
"Councils don't give a hoot about motorists - apart from seperating (sic) them from their money." £65,000,000 for the Sadlers Farm upgrade. £25,000,000 more spent improving Progress Road, Cuckoo Corner and Vic Circus. Seems to me local councils care quite a lot about motorists.

And just how much is taken in road duty and then fuel tax and then VAT on top of that? Any road 'improvements' are paid for from that with plenty of change to spare - the rest is wasted on benefit bludgers and subsidising council houses.

Probably.

Apart from riding a bike and spotting typos, what is it you actually do?

Not very much I doubt. Typical chippy envious leftie.

Now since I and many other seem to pay throught the nose for the roads, the least you could do as a cyclist is cough up. Or shut up. Preferably.

There's no such thing as 'road duty'.

I do pay for roads, because roads are paid for through general taxation, through council tax, income tax, VAT on everything. In fact ALL taxes that go into the central pot contribute towards the building and upkeep of roads.

There is only ONE hypothecated tax in the UK - the Television Licence. (you can Google what hypothecated means, or use a dictionary if you have one).

I suggest you go away, educate yourself on how roads are paid for in the UK, and then come back with something other than uneducated rhetoric. Because you are in real danger of making yourself look like a petty dribbling moron.

John T Pharro wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Rochford Rob wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
"Councils don't give a hoot about motorists - apart from seperating (sic) them from their money." £65,000,000 for the Sadlers Farm upgrade. £25,000,000 more spent improving Progress Road, Cuckoo Corner and Vic Circus. Seems to me local councils care quite a lot about motorists.

And just how much is taken in road duty and then fuel tax and then VAT on top of that? Any road 'improvements' are paid for from that with plenty of change to spare - the rest is wasted on benefit bludgers and subsidising council houses.

Probably.

Apart from riding a bike and spotting typos, what is it you actually do?

Not very much I doubt. Typical chippy envious leftie.

Now since I and many other seem to pay throught the nose for the roads, the least you could do as a cyclist is cough up. Or shut up. Preferably.

There's no such thing as 'road duty'.

I do pay for roads, because roads are paid for through general taxation, through council tax, income tax, VAT on everything. In fact ALL taxes that go into the central pot contribute towards the building and upkeep of roads.

There is only ONE hypothecated tax in the UK - the Television Licence. (you can Google what hypothecated means, or use a dictionary if you have one).

I suggest you go away, educate yourself on how roads are paid for in the UK, and then come back with something other than uneducated rhetoric. Because you are in real danger of making yourself look like a petty dribbling moron.

There you go again you said in previous posts "if you insult you have lost the argument". You have just done it again haven't you?
Plus you are off again pontificating on your vast technical knowledge of what tax is and accusing someone who has the temerity to challenge your views as in danger of being "a petty dribbling moron". Think there are more than a few people think it is you that needs a tissue.

A Pedant wrote:
As a matter of interest can someone confirm whether a blue badge actually entitles the user to park on double yellow lines.

ta

southendshrimper wrote:
I bet the only people who want them scrapped are the people who have been caught.

Rochford Rob wrote:

WhateverS wrote:
Get a van and you can park where you like for 20 mins free I've often been caught by these cars but cause its a van they can't do nowt lol

Yeah, yeah. During last years snow I parked my van on London Rd outside Leigh Timber whilst I went into the yard to see iif they had space to park. The yellow lines were covered in snow. I was there for 30 seconds - the time to walk into the yard and back.

I got a ticket. The next time I went the guys at the counter told me the car patrols just a few minutes each day when the restriction is in place.

I take my custom elswhere now.

Councils don't give a hoot about motorists - apart from seperating them from their money.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

John T Pharro wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Rochford Rob wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
"Councils don't give a hoot about motorists - apart from seperating (sic) them from their money." £65,000,000 for the Sadlers Farm upgrade. £25,000,000 more spent improving Progress Road, Cuckoo Corner and Vic Circus. Seems to me local councils care quite a lot about motorists.

And just how much is taken in road duty and then fuel tax and then VAT on top of that? Any road 'improvements' are paid for from that with plenty of change to spare - the rest is wasted on benefit bludgers and subsidising council houses.

Probably.

Apart from riding a bike and spotting typos, what is it you actually do?

Not very much I doubt. Typical chippy envious leftie.

Now since I and many other seem to pay throught the nose for the roads, the least you could do as a cyclist is cough up. Or shut up. Preferably.

There's no such thing as 'road duty'.

I do pay for roads, because roads are paid for through general taxation, through council tax, income tax, VAT on everything. In fact ALL taxes that go into the central pot contribute towards the building and upkeep of roads.

There is only ONE hypothecated tax in the UK - the Television Licence. (you can Google what hypothecated means, or use a dictionary if you have one).

I suggest you go away, educate yourself on how roads are paid for in the UK, and then come back with something other than uneducated rhetoric. Because you are in real danger of making yourself look like a petty dribbling moron.

There you go again you said in previous posts "if you insult you have lost the argument". You have just done it again haven't you?
Plus you are off again pontificating on your vast technical knowledge of what tax is and accusing someone who has the temerity to challenge your views as in danger of being "a petty dribbling moron". Think there are more than a few people think it is you that needs a tissue.

Saying someone is 'in danger of being something' is not saying they ARE something. I have insulted no-one.

My views were not challenged at all. Someone claimed they pay a non-existent tax, and I corrected them with the truth that their claimed tax does not exist.

I hate the police wrote:
This again is just another making scandal. Doing this does not gain any respect from members of the public. Usually people are ticketed for only stopping for a matter of seconds, like the woman who was dropping off her old age dad if I remember rightly. The wardens have been scrapped in Basildon for dropping cigarettes, so I think its about time they give the motorist a break too. I know if I was caught by one of those stupid smart cars, I would literally ram that piece of crap straight off the road, and make it flip in the air about 4 times. The driver and the car wouldnt be so smart then.

Rochford Rob wrote:
Shoebury Socialist wrote... "Because you are in real danger of making yourself look like a petty dribbling moron.

Sorry, that vacancy was filled a long time ago.

OK, semantics aside, why do I have to shell out for that little paper disc on my windscreeen then? As for tax in the pot, every single penny of income tax collected isn't sufficient to pay the welfare bill. 'Road Tax' for want of whatever it is called pays towards the roads, or should do, but it doesn't, it is wasted elsewhere.

As for other taxes, I pay 'em all so why should you use the road for free or why am I being charged more??

Even the DVLA refer to it as 'Tax'

Rochford Rob wrote:
Shoebury Socialist wrote... "Because you are in real danger of making yourself look like a petty dribbling moron.

Sorry, that vacancy was filled a long time ago.

OK, semantics aside, why do I have to shell out for that little paper disc on my windscreeen then? As for tax in the pot, every single penny of income tax collected isn't sufficient to pay the welfare bill. 'Road Tax' for want of whatever it is called pays towards the roads, or should do, but it doesn't, it is wasted elsewhere.

As for other taxes, I pay 'em all so why should you use the road for free or why am I being charged more??

Even the DVLA refer to it as 'Tax'

John T Pharro wrote:

Rochford Rob wrote:
Shoebury Socialist wrote... "Because you are in real danger of making yourself look like a petty dribbling moron.

Sorry, that vacancy was filled a long time ago.

OK, semantics aside, why do I have to shell out for that little paper disc on my windscreeen then? As for tax in the pot, every single penny of income tax collected isn't sufficient to pay the welfare bill. 'Road Tax' for want of whatever it is called pays towards the roads, or should do, but it doesn't, it is wasted elsewhere.

As for other taxes, I pay 'em all so why should you use the road for free or why am I being charged more??

Even the DVLA refer to it as 'Tax'

Bet he says it is vehicle excise duty and therefore not a tax. The fact that you cannot keep a vehicle on a public road without one (he will list a few exceptions like older vehicles) and is commonly referred to as a tax by most people, because it was once called road tax and meant to maintain and build road will not mean a thing to him. He is pedantic to the point of being ridiculous.

Nigel Wise wrote:
As usual this article has been followed by several postings by people who obviously work in the parking department at Southend and the manufacturers of these vehicles. All of these people are in fear of losing their jobs if the 'spy cars' are taken off the road. This always happens when this type of article appears.
If you were to conduct a poll of the man in the street as I did in Richmond-upon-Thames you would find that over 90% of the public are against the use of these vehicles. They are BIG vote losers for those councils that use them.
In Richmond the vehicles were permanently removed from the roads after the new Parking Manager did a complete review of their operation. In short he determined that they were unnecessary. They are ONLY used to derive income. They do not address road saftey at all. An example of this was a motorist who was issued with 6 PCN's all of which arrived through his letter box en-block. The PCN's had all been issued for 'dropping off' his children at their school. The motorist was unaware that he was not allowed to stop briefly to do this. If a patrolling CEO had been there the CEO would have informed the driver on day one that he could not do it. Instead of doing this the CEO's in the 'Spy Car' were content to remain in their warm car day in and day out thereby putting children AT risk.
BTW Lord True the leader of Richmond Council has also seen to it that Richmond now has the fairest parking enforcement in the country. The words 'Spy Cars with their tinted windows' were used by Lord True when he announced the refunds.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

John T Pharro wrote:

Rochford Rob wrote:
Shoebury Socialist wrote... "Because you are in real danger of making yourself look like a petty dribbling moron.

Sorry, that vacancy was filled a long time ago.

OK, semantics aside, why do I have to shell out for that little paper disc on my windscreeen then? As for tax in the pot, every single penny of income tax collected isn't sufficient to pay the welfare bill. 'Road Tax' for want of whatever it is called pays towards the roads, or should do, but it doesn't, it is wasted elsewhere.

As for other taxes, I pay 'em all so why should you use the road for free or why am I being charged more??

Even the DVLA refer to it as 'Tax'

Bet he says it is vehicle excise duty and therefore not a tax. The fact that you cannot keep a vehicle on a public road without one (he will list a few exceptions like older vehicles) and is commonly referred to as a tax by most people, because it was once called road tax and meant to maintain and build road will not mean a thing to him. He is pedantic to the point of being ridiculous.

'Road tax' was abolished in 1937, and in it's time of existence didn't actually pay for any roads. In fact it was cyclists who first got the British government to upgrade British roads. Roads were not built for cars. Learn your history.

http://www.roadswere

notbuiltforcars.com

John T Pharro wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

John T Pharro wrote:

Rochford Rob wrote:
Shoebury Socialist wrote... "Because you are in real danger of making yourself look like a petty dribbling moron.

Sorry, that vacancy was filled a long time ago.

OK, semantics aside, why do I have to shell out for that little paper disc on my windscreeen then? As for tax in the pot, every single penny of income tax collected isn't sufficient to pay the welfare bill. 'Road Tax' for want of whatever it is called pays towards the roads, or should do, but it doesn't, it is wasted elsewhere.

As for other taxes, I pay 'em all so why should you use the road for free or why am I being charged more??

Even the DVLA refer to it as 'Tax'

Bet he says it is vehicle excise duty and therefore not a tax. The fact that you cannot keep a vehicle on a public road without one (he will list a few exceptions like older vehicles) and is commonly referred to as a tax by most people, because it was once called road tax and meant to maintain and build road will not mean a thing to him. He is pedantic to the point of being ridiculous.

'Road tax' was abolished in 1937, and in it's time of existence didn't actually pay for any roads. In fact it was cyclists who first got the British government to upgrade British roads. Roads were not built for cars. Learn your history.

http://www.roadswere


notbuiltforcars.com

Predictable wasn't he Rochford Bob?

Nigel Wise wrote:
A 'Spy Car' does NOT solve the problem either. It can and often does put children AT RISK (see above). A patrolling CEO can and often does PROTECT children.
Furthermore, I seem to remember that a Southend 'Spy Car' was responsible for knocking down a child on the promenade in Southend. I rest my case.
.

Nigel Wise wrote:
A 'Spy Car' does NOT solve the problem either. It can and often does put children AT RISK (see above). A patrolling CEO can and often does PROTECT children.
Furthermore, I seem to remember that a Southend 'Spy Car' was responsible for knocking down a child on the promenade in Southend. I rest my case.
.

Nigel Wise wrote:
As usual this article has been followed by several postings by people who obviously work in the parking department at Southend and the manufacturers of these vehicles. All of these people are in fear of losing their jobs if the 'spy cars' are taken off the road. This always happens when this type of article appears.
If you were to conduct a poll of the man in the street as I did in Richmond-upon-Thames you would find that over 90% of the public are against the use of these vehicles. They are BIG vote losers for those councils that use them.
In Richmond the vehicles were permanently removed from the roads after the new Parking Manager did a complete review of their operation. In short he determined that they were unnecessary. They are ONLY used to derive income. They do not address road saftey at all. An example of this was a motorist who was issued with 6 PCN's all of which arrived through his letter box en-block. The PCN's had all been issued for 'dropping off' his children at their school. The motorist was unaware that he was not allowed to stop briefly to do this. If a patrolling CEO had been there the CEO would have informed the driver on day one that he could not do it. Instead of doing this the CEO's in the 'Spy Car' were content to remain in their warm car day in and day out thereby putting children AT risk.
BTW Lord True the leader of Richmond Council has also seen to it that Richmond now has the fairest parking enforcement in the country. The words 'Spy Cars with their tinted windows' were used by Lord True when he announced the refunds.

Nigel Wise wrote:
Is it possible to have a total of two 'spy cars' at every school ?
'Spy cars' are introduced on the laudable back of 'protecting children'. The reality is somewhat different. They are extensively used outside of school hours to enforce other 'restrictions' where according to the Secretary of States Guidance they should NOT be used.

Nigel Wise wrote:
As usual this article has been followed by several postings by people who obviously work in the parking department at Southend and the manufacturers of these vehicles. All of these people are in fear of losing their jobs if the 'spy cars' are taken off the road. This always happens when this type of article appears.
If you were to conduct a poll of the man in the street as I did in Richmond-upon-Thames you would find that over 90% of the public are against the use of these vehicles. They are BIG vote losers for those councils that use them.
In Richmond the vehicles were permanently removed from the roads after the new Parking Manager did a complete review of their operation. In short he determined that they were unnecessary. They are ONLY used to derive income. They do not address road saftey at all. An example of this was a motorist who was issued with 6 PCN's all of which arrived through his letter box en-block. The PCN's had all been issued for 'dropping off' his children at their school. The motorist was unaware that he was not allowed to stop briefly to do this. If a patrolling CEO had been there the CEO would have informed the driver on day one that he could not do it. Instead of doing this the CEO's in the 'Spy Car' were content to remain in their warm car day in and day out thereby putting children AT risk.
BTW Lord True the leader of Richmond Council has also seen to it that Richmond now has the fairest parking enforcement in the country. The words 'Spy Cars with their tinted windows' were used by Lord True when he announced the refunds.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nigel Wise wrote:
As usual this article has been followed by several postings by people who obviously work in the parking department at Southend and the manufacturers of these vehicles. All of these people are in fear of losing their jobs if the 'spy cars' are taken off the road. This always happens when this type of article appears.
If you were to conduct a poll of the man in the street as I did in Richmond-upon-Thames you would find that over 90% of the public are against the use of these vehicles. They are BIG vote losers for those councils that use them.
In Richmond the vehicles were permanently removed from the roads after the new Parking Manager did a complete review of their operation. In short he determined that they were unnecessary. They are ONLY used to derive income. They do not address road saftey at all. An example of this was a motorist who was issued with 6 PCN's all of which arrived through his letter box en-block. The PCN's had all been issued for 'dropping off' his children at their school. The motorist was unaware that he was not allowed to stop briefly to do this. If a patrolling CEO had been there the CEO would have informed the driver on day one that he could not do it. Instead of doing this the CEO's in the 'Spy Car' were content to remain in their warm car day in and day out thereby putting children AT risk.
BTW Lord True the leader of Richmond Council has also seen to it that Richmond now has the fairest parking enforcement in the country. The words 'Spy Cars with their tinted windows' were used by Lord True when he announced the refunds.

I disagree. The parent parking illegally was putting children at risk.

I think we are too soft on illegal parking. The offence should be upgraded to include penalty points on licenses. That way those who don't learn from their mistakes will eventually be removed from the road, and those who do learn will park legally and no longer present a hazard to others.

stopmoaning1 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nigel Wise wrote:
As usual this article has been followed by several postings by people who obviously work in the parking department at Southend and the manufacturers of these vehicles. All of these people are in fear of losing their jobs if the 'spy cars' are taken off the road. This always happens when this type of article appears.
If you were to conduct a poll of the man in the street as I did in Richmond-upon-Thames you would find that over 90% of the public are against the use of these vehicles. They are BIG vote losers for those councils that use them.
In Richmond the vehicles were permanently removed from the roads after the new Parking Manager did a complete review of their operation. In short he determined that they were unnecessary. They are ONLY used to derive income. They do not address road saftey at all. An example of this was a motorist who was issued with 6 PCN's all of which arrived through his letter box en-block. The PCN's had all been issued for 'dropping off' his children at their school. The motorist was unaware that he was not allowed to stop briefly to do this. If a patrolling CEO had been there the CEO would have informed the driver on day one that he could not do it. Instead of doing this the CEO's in the 'Spy Car' were content to remain in their warm car day in and day out thereby putting children AT risk.
BTW Lord True the leader of Richmond Council has also seen to it that Richmond now has the fairest parking enforcement in the country. The words 'Spy Cars with their tinted windows' were used by Lord True when he announced the refunds.

I disagree. The parent parking illegally was putting children at risk.

I think we are too soft on illegal parking. The offence should be upgraded to include penalty points on licenses. That way those who don't learn from their mistakes will eventually be removed from the road, and those who do learn will park legally and no longer present a hazard to others.

Knowing how much you like to be factually correct, I’m surprised you have written this.
Unless the parents stopped on the zig zag’s (or red line if in London) it is legal to stop in order to set down or pick up passengers. ‘Parking’ is different.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Oh, and thank you for calling me Shoebury Socialist. I'm quite proud that I'm a Socialist. Looking at the way our economy is now trashed thanks to Cameron and Osborne, and thanks to their reckless ideology driven 'austerity' plan, our credit rating is now downgraded, I'm glad I'm a Socialist, because that never happened when we had a socialist government.

Hathi67 wrote:
"The council has claimed these cars are here to stop people parking dangerously outside schools," But when are they at the schools? I drive past schools on my way home, Schools do not have car parks so cars park accross drives on the zig zag or where ever they want to park with no consideration to residents. Get those cars to the schools at pick up time and stop the school chaos.

I hate the police wrote:
This again is just another making scandal. Doing this does not gain any respect from members of the public. Usually people are ticketed for only stopping for a matter of seconds, like the woman who was dropping off her old age dad if I remember rightly. The wardens have been scrapped in Basildon for dropping cigarettes, so I think its about time they give the motorist a break too. I know if I was caught by one of those stupid smart cars, I would literally ram that piece of crap straight off the road, and make it flip in the air about 4 times. The driver and the car wouldnt be so smart then.

Rouge9 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: Oh, and thank you for calling me Shoebury Socialist. I'm quite proud that I'm a Socialist. Looking at the way our economy is now trashed thanks to Cameron and Osborne, and thanks to their reckless ideology driven 'austerity' plan, our credit rating is now downgraded, I'm glad I'm a Socialist, because that never happened when we had a socialist government.

Socialist - or nulabia - as they call themseves put this country into a position where austerity was needed. So you're happy to be in that group, fine, just to raise a clarifiacation, when Britain was downgraded to AA rating in the 1970's, who was in government? Typical Labour governments - spend until we're broke, the tories then have to clean up their mess, only to be elected out when everything is back on an even keel

Nigel Wise wrote:
As usual this article has been followed by several postings by people who obviously work in the parking department at Southend and the manufacturers of these vehicles. All of these people are in fear of losing their jobs if the 'spy cars' are taken off the road. This always happens when this type of article appears. If you were to conduct a poll of the man in the street as I did in Richmond-upon-Thames you would find that over 90% of the public are against the use of these vehicles. They are BIG vote losers for those councils that use them. In Richmond the vehicles were permanently removed from the roads after the new Parking Manager did a complete review of their operation. In short he determined that they were unnecessary. They are ONLY used to derive income. They do not address road saftey at all. An example of this was a motorist who was issued with 6 PCN's all of which arrived through his letter box en-block. The PCN's had all been issued for 'dropping off' his children at their school. The motorist was unaware that he was not allowed to stop briefly to do this. If a patrolling CEO had been there the CEO would have informed the driver on day one that he could not do it. Instead of doing this the CEO's in the 'Spy Car' were content to remain in their warm car day in and day out thereby putting children AT risk. BTW Lord True the leader of Richmond Council has also seen to it that Richmond now has the fairest parking enforcement in the country. The words 'Spy Cars with their tinted windows' were used by Lord True when he announced the refunds.

Rochford Rob wrote:

Rouge9 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: Oh, and thank you for calling me Shoebury Socialist. I'm quite proud that I'm a Socialist. Looking at the way our economy is now trashed thanks to Cameron and Osborne, and thanks to their reckless ideology driven 'austerity' plan, our credit rating is now downgraded, I'm glad I'm a Socialist, because that never happened when we had a socialist government.

Socialist - or nulabia - as they call themseves put this country into a position where austerity was needed. So you're happy to be in that group, fine, just to raise a clarifiacation, when Britain was downgraded to AA rating in the 1970's, who was in government? Typical Labour governments - spend until we're broke, the tories then have to clean up their mess, only to be elected out when everything is back on an even keel

Thanks, saved me writing that. We are skint because we inherited a deficit >700 billion, by continuing with the same idiotic policies by 'Blue Liebor' that has grown to 1.4 trillion. Back to topic, there are no schools next to Leigh Timber - the traders there told me the camera car and lines were just a cynical ploy introduced to generate revenue. The restrictions are in place for one hour in the middle of the morning. That makes no sense.

Rouge9 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Oh, and thank you for calling me Shoebury Socialist. I'm quite proud that I'm a Socialist. Looking at the way our economy is now trashed thanks to Cameron and Osborne, and thanks to their reckless ideology driven 'austerity' plan, our credit rating is now downgraded, I'm glad I'm a Socialist, because that never happened when we had a socialist government.

Socialist - or nulabia - as they call themseves put this country into a position where austerity was needed. So you're happy to be in that group, fine, just to raise a clarifiacation, when Britain was downgraded to AA rating in the 1970's, who was in government?
Typical Labour governments - spend until we're broke, the tories then have to clean up their mess, only to be elected out when everything is back on an even keel

Alekhine wrote:
The poisonous American sub-prime mortgage liabilities were sold on around the entire banking system as banks tried to lay off some of their risk. They were bundled together in a way that made it difficult for a bank to understand what what actually in them. i.e nobody really understood the risk - and what goes out of the front door comes in again at the back, circular style.

The banking regulations which could have reduced the damage had already been effectively dumped by GB who had opted for a "light touch" banking regulation.

Things can only get better (smoke and mirrors style)

David_Cameron wrote:

Alekhine wrote: The poisonous American sub-prime mortgage liabilities were sold on around the entire banking system as banks tried to lay off some of their risk. They were bundled together in a way that made it difficult for a bank to understand what what actually in them. i.e nobody really understood the risk - and what goes out of the front door comes in again at the back, circular style. The banking regulations which could have reduced the damage had already been effectively dumped by GB who had opted for a "light touch" banking regulation. Things can only get better (smoke and mirrors style)

I say, credit where it's due Old Boy! It was Saint Margaret - may she always be blessed - who deregulated our financial system in 1987 and created the 'big bang'. Old Gordyboy's only mistake was not then re-regulating the banks, but we Tories managed to beat him down, with a lot of help from Uncle Rupert we scared labour into keeping things unregulated in case Uncle Rupert ruined their election chances with his newspapers. So don't you go crediting Labour with the deregulation of the banks, it was the blessed Saint Margaret, may she ever live in glory!

Alekhine wrote:

David_Cameron wrote:

Alekhine wrote: The poisonous American sub-prime mortgage liabilities were sold on around the entire banking system as banks tried to lay off some of their risk. They were bundled together in a way that made it difficult for a bank to understand what what actually in them. i.e nobody really understood the risk - and what goes out of the front door comes in again at the back, circular style. The banking regulations which could have reduced the damage had already been effectively dumped by GB who had opted for a "light touch" banking regulation. Things can only get better (smoke and mirrors style)

I say, credit where it's due Old Boy! It was Saint Margaret - may she always be blessed - who deregulated our financial system in 1987 and created the 'big bang'. Old Gordyboy's only mistake was not then re-regulating the banks, but we Tories managed to beat him down, with a lot of help from Uncle Rupert we scared labour into keeping things unregulated in case Uncle Rupert ruined their election chances with his newspapers. So don't you go crediting Labour with the deregulation of the banks, it was the blessed Saint Margaret, may she ever live in glory!

Saint Margaret had been absent for at least a decade, but don't let that get in the way of the usual socialist denail of responsibity. Light touch banking regulation was invented and inplemented by GB as chancellor.

I believe uncle Rupert and his newspapers supported Labour from before the 1997 election and then for the next 10 years. Rupert might have had an angry telcon with GB but Labour did not need him to ruin their election chances. That was one job they were fully capable of doing for themselves.

Rochford Rob wrote:

Rouge9 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: Oh, and thank you for calling me Shoebury Socialist. I'm quite proud that I'm a Socialist. Looking at the way our economy is now trashed thanks to Cameron and Osborne, and thanks to their reckless ideology driven 'austerity' plan, our credit rating is now downgraded, I'm glad I'm a Socialist, because that never happened when we had a socialist government.

Socialist - or nulabia - as they call themseves put this country into a position where austerity was needed. So you're happy to be in that group, fine, just to raise a clarifiacation, when Britain was downgraded to AA rating in the 1970's, who was in government? Typical Labour governments - spend until we're broke, the tories then have to clean up their mess, only to be elected out when everything is back on an even keel

Thanks, saved me writing that. We are skint because we inherited a deficit >700 billion, by continuing with the same idiotic policies by 'Blue Liebor' that has grown to 1.4 trillion.

Back to topic, there are no schools next to Leigh Timber - the traders there told me the camera car and lines were just a cynical ploy introduced to generate revenue. The restrictions are in place for one hour in the middle of the morning.

That makes no sense.

David_Cameron wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

David_Cameron wrote:

Alekhine wrote: The poisonous American sub-prime mortgage liabilities were sold on around the entire banking system as banks tried to lay off some of their risk. They were bundled together in a way that made it difficult for a bank to understand what what actually in them. i.e nobody really understood the risk - and what goes out of the front door comes in again at the back, circular style. The banking regulations which could have reduced the damage had already been effectively dumped by GB who had opted for a "light touch" banking regulation. Things can only get better (smoke and mirrors style)

I say, credit where it's due Old Boy! It was Saint Margaret - may she always be blessed - who deregulated our financial system in 1987 and created the 'big bang'. Old Gordyboy's only mistake was not then re-regulating the banks, but we Tories managed to beat him down, with a lot of help from Uncle Rupert we scared labour into keeping things unregulated in case Uncle Rupert ruined their election chances with his newspapers. So don't you go crediting Labour with the deregulation of the banks, it was the blessed Saint Margaret, may she ever live in glory!

Saint Margaret had been absent for at least a decade, but don't let that get in the way of the usual socialist denail of responsibity. Light touch banking regulation was invented and inplemented by GB as chancellor. I believe uncle Rupert and his newspapers supported Labour from before the 1997 election and then for the next 10 years. Rupert might have had an angry telcon with GB but Labour did not need him to ruin their election chances. That was one job they were fully capable of doing for themselves.

Tommyrot! Here's the truth of it, our Darling Margaret deregulated the financial markets and the banks! http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Big_Bang_(f inancial_markets)

A Pedant wrote:
As a matter of interest can someone confirm whether a blue badge actually entitles the user to park on double yellow lines.

ta

John T Pharro wrote:

stopmoaning1 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nigel Wise wrote:
As usual this article has been followed by several postings by people who obviously work in the parking department at Southend and the manufacturers of these vehicles. All of these people are in fear of losing their jobs if the 'spy cars' are taken off the road. This always happens when this type of article appears.
If you were to conduct a poll of the man in the street as I did in Richmond-upon-Thames you would find that over 90% of the public are against the use of these vehicles. They are BIG vote losers for those councils that use them.
In Richmond the vehicles were permanently removed from the roads after the new Parking Manager did a complete review of their operation. In short he determined that they were unnecessary. They are ONLY used to derive income. They do not address road saftey at all. An example of this was a motorist who was issued with 6 PCN's all of which arrived through his letter box en-block. The PCN's had all been issued for 'dropping off' his children at their school. The motorist was unaware that he was not allowed to stop briefly to do this. If a patrolling CEO had been there the CEO would have informed the driver on day one that he could not do it. Instead of doing this the CEO's in the 'Spy Car' were content to remain in their warm car day in and day out thereby putting children AT risk.
BTW Lord True the leader of Richmond Council has also seen to it that Richmond now has the fairest parking enforcement in the country. The words 'Spy Cars with their tinted windows' were used by Lord True when he announced the refunds.

I disagree. The parent parking illegally was putting children at risk.

I think we are too soft on illegal parking. The offence should be upgraded to include penalty points on licenses. That way those who don't learn from their mistakes will eventually be removed from the road, and those who do learn will park legally and no longer present a hazard to others.

Knowing how much you like to be factually correct, I’m surprised you have written this.
Unless the parents stopped on the zig zag’s (or red line if in London) it is legal to stop in order to set down or pick up passengers. ‘Parking’ is different.

I suggest you check again and google it and read the many posts on this subject. Set down and picking up passengers is legal on a double yellow line however. Incidentally it is also an offence to drop off or pick up passengers on a solid yellow line on a bus stop as the recent in the "Echo" article showed when a woman in Southend is refusing to pay the fine.. Can you tell me how the parents managed to let their children out unless they were stopped? Did they jump out of a moving car?

Carnabackable wrote:
I'd bring back LBS, they kept the roads clear of illegal parkers, like no other, they weren't perfect but they did the job, unless of course you an illegal parker.

Alekhine wrote:

David_Cameron wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

David_Cameron wrote:

Alekhine wrote: The poisonous American sub-prime mortgage liabilities were sold on around the entire banking system as banks tried to lay off some of their risk. They were bundled together in a way that made it difficult for a bank to understand what what actually in them. i.e nobody really understood the risk - and what goes out of the front door comes in again at the back, circular style. The banking regulations which could have reduced the damage had already been effectively dumped by GB who had opted for a "light touch" banking regulation. Things can only get better (smoke and mirrors style)

I say, credit where it's due Old Boy! It was Saint Margaret - may she always be blessed - who deregulated our financial system in 1987 and created the 'big bang'. Old Gordyboy's only mistake was not then re-regulating the banks, but we Tories managed to beat him down, with a lot of help from Uncle Rupert we scared labour into keeping things unregulated in case Uncle Rupert ruined their election chances with his newspapers. So don't you go crediting Labour with the deregulation of the banks, it was the blessed Saint Margaret, may she ever live in glory!

Saint Margaret had been absent for at least a decade, but don't let that get in the way of the usual socialist denail of responsibity. Light touch banking regulation was invented and inplemented by GB as chancellor. I believe uncle Rupert and his newspapers supported Labour from before the 1997 election and then for the next 10 years. Rupert might have had an angry telcon with GB but Labour did not need him to ruin their election chances. That was one job they were fully capable of doing for themselves.

Tommyrot! Here's the truth of it, our Darling Margaret deregulated the financial markets and the banks! http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Big_Bang_(f inancial_markets)

Nope, here is the truth of it.

Banks operation in UK have to follow the corporate due dilligence procedures set out by the Bank of England. These would obviously include a mechanism of risk assessment for complex products.

Since BofE is independent the Chancellor can only make recommendations (but that is a very small fig leaf).

The deregulation of the financial markets in the 80's, which allowed public access to what was previously a closed market, is only remotely connected to this issue.

David_Cameron wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

David_Cameron wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

David_Cameron wrote:

Alekhine wrote: The poisonous American sub-prime mortgage liabilities were sold on around the entire banking system as banks tried to lay off some of their risk. They were bundled together in a way that made it difficult for a bank to understand what what actually in them. i.e nobody really understood the risk - and what goes out of the front door comes in again at the back, circular style. The banking regulations which could have reduced the damage had already been effectively dumped by GB who had opted for a "light touch" banking regulation. Things can only get better (smoke and mirrors style)

I say, credit where it's due Old Boy! It was Saint Margaret - may she always be blessed - who deregulated our financial system in 1987 and created the 'big bang'. Old Gordyboy's only mistake was not then re-regulating the banks, but we Tories managed to beat him down, with a lot of help from Uncle Rupert we scared labour into keeping things unregulated in case Uncle Rupert ruined their election chances with his newspapers. So don't you go crediting Labour with the deregulation of the banks, it was the blessed Saint Margaret, may she ever live in glory!

Saint Margaret had been absent for at least a decade, but don't let that get in the way of the usual socialist denail of responsibity. Light touch banking regulation was invented and inplemented by GB as chancellor. I believe uncle Rupert and his newspapers supported Labour from before the 1997 election and then for the next 10 years. Rupert might have had an angry telcon with GB but Labour did not need him to ruin their election chances. That was one job they were fully capable of doing for themselves.

Tommyrot! Here's the truth of it, our Darling Margaret deregulated the financial markets and the banks! http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Big_Bang_(f inancial_markets)

Nope, here is the truth of it.

Banks operation in UK have to follow the corporate due dilligence procedures set out by the Bank of England. These would obviously include a mechanism of risk assessment for complex products.

Since BofE is independent the Chancellor can only make recommendations (but that is a very small fig leaf).

The deregulation of the financial markets in the 80's, which allowed public access to what was previously a closed market, is only remotely connected to this issue.

The deregulation of the financial markets and opening them up to unfettered free market is the absolute core that permitted the banks to run riot, and for so many of us to make an absolute killing in the process, Old Boy.

I do wish you labour types would stop trying to steal we Conservatives thunder! We deregulated the markets, we deregulated the banks, we created the glorious financial free market, we created the ever expanding number of barely taxed UK millionaires. And now we're making things even better by taxing millionaires even less and making the peons at the bottom pay even more!

Beautiful, isn't it? Never forget, 'There is no such thing as society.'

David_Cameron wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

David_Cameron wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

David_Cameron wrote:

Alekhine wrote: The poisonous American sub-prime mortgage liabilities were sold on around the entire banking system as banks tried to lay off some of their risk. They were bundled together in a way that made it difficult for a bank to understand what what actually in them. i.e nobody really understood the risk - and what goes out of the front door comes in again at the back, circular style. The banking regulations which could have reduced the damage had already been effectively dumped by GB who had opted for a "light touch" banking regulation. Things can only get better (smoke and mirrors style)

I say, credit where it's due Old Boy! It was Saint Margaret - may she always be blessed - who deregulated our financial system in 1987 and created the 'big bang'. Old Gordyboy's only mistake was not then re-regulating the banks, but we Tories managed to beat him down, with a lot of help from Uncle Rupert we scared labour into keeping things unregulated in case Uncle Rupert ruined their election chances with his newspapers. So don't you go crediting Labour with the deregulation of the banks, it was the blessed Saint Margaret, may she ever live in glory!

Saint Margaret had been absent for at least a decade, but don't let that get in the way of the usual socialist denail of responsibity. Light touch banking regulation was invented and inplemented by GB as chancellor. I believe uncle Rupert and his newspapers supported Labour from before the 1997 election and then for the next 10 years. Rupert might have had an angry telcon with GB but Labour did not need him to ruin their election chances. That was one job they were fully capable of doing for themselves.

Tommyrot! Here's the truth of it, our Darling Margaret deregulated the financial markets and the banks! http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Big_Bang_(f inancial_markets)

Nope, here is the truth of it. Banks operation in UK have to follow the corporate due dilligence procedures set out by the Bank of England. These would obviously include a mechanism of risk assessment for complex products. Since BofE is independent the Chancellor can only make recommendations (but that is a very small fig leaf). The deregulation of the financial markets in the 80's, which allowed public access to what was previously a closed market, is only remotely connected to this issue.

The deregulation of the financial markets and opening them up to unfettered free market is the absolute core that permitted the banks to run riot, and for so many of us to make an absolute killing in the process, Old Boy. I do wish you labour types would stop trying to steal we Conservatives thunder! We deregulated the markets, we deregulated the banks, we created the glorious financial free market, we created the ever expanding number of barely taxed UK millionaires. And now we're making things even better by taxing millionaires even less and making the peons at the bottom pay even more! Beautiful, isn't it? Never forget, 'There is no such thing as society.'

Red Under Your Bed wrote:

David_Cameron wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

David_Cameron wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

David_Cameron wrote:

Alekhine wrote: The poisonous American sub-prime mortgage liabilities were sold on around the entire banking system as banks tried to lay off some of their risk. They were bundled together in a way that made it difficult for a bank to understand what what actually in them. i.e nobody really understood the risk - and what goes out of the front door comes in again at the back, circular style. The banking regulations which could have reduced the damage had already been effectively dumped by GB who had opted for a "light touch" banking regulation. Things can only get better (smoke and mirrors style)

I say, credit where it's due Old Boy! It was Saint Margaret - may she always be blessed - who deregulated our financial system in 1987 and created the 'big bang'. Old Gordyboy's only mistake was not then re-regulating the banks, but we Tories managed to beat him down, with a lot of help from Uncle Rupert we scared labour into keeping things unregulated in case Uncle Rupert ruined their election chances with his newspapers. So don't you go crediting Labour with the deregulation of the banks, it was the blessed Saint Margaret, may she ever live in glory!

Saint Margaret had been absent for at least a decade, but don't let that get in the way of the usual socialist denail of responsibity. Light touch banking regulation was invented and inplemented by GB as chancellor. I believe uncle Rupert and his newspapers supported Labour from before the 1997 election and then for the next 10 years. Rupert might have had an angry telcon with GB but Labour did not need him to ruin their election chances. That was one job they were fully capable of doing for themselves.

Tommyrot! Here's the truth of it, our Darling Margaret deregulated the financial markets and the banks! http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Big_Bang_(f inancial_markets)

Nope, here is the truth of it. Banks operation in UK have to follow the corporate due dilligence procedures set out by the Bank of England. These would obviously include a mechanism of risk assessment for complex products. Since BofE is independent the Chancellor can only make recommendations (but that is a very small fig leaf). The deregulation of the financial markets in the 80's, which allowed public access to what was previously a closed market, is only remotely connected to this issue.

The deregulation of the financial markets and opening them up to unfettered free market is the absolute core that permitted the banks to run riot, and for so many of us to make an absolute killing in the process, Old Boy. I do wish you labour types would stop trying to steal we Conservatives thunder! We deregulated the markets, we deregulated the banks, we created the glorious financial free market, we created the ever expanding number of barely taxed UK millionaires. And now we're making things even better by taxing millionaires even less and making the peons at the bottom pay even more! Beautiful, isn't it? Never forget, 'There is no such thing as society.'

When your bedroom tax and the benefit cuts kick in, when people are losing their homes and can't feed their families and they take to the streets, the summer riots of 2011 are going to look like a pub fight compared to what the summer of 2013 may look like.

Alekhine wrote:

Red Under Your Bed wrote:

David_Cameron wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

David_Cameron wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

David_Cameron wrote:

Alekhine wrote: The poisonous American sub-prime mortgage liabilities were sold on around the entire banking system as banks tried to lay off some of their risk. They were bundled together in a way that made it difficult for a bank to understand what what actually in them. i.e nobody really understood the risk - and what goes out of the front door comes in again at the back, circular style. The banking regulations which could have reduced the damage had already been effectively dumped by GB who had opted for a "light touch" banking regulation. Things can only get better (smoke and mirrors style)

I say, credit where it's due Old Boy! It was Saint Margaret - may she always be blessed - who deregulated our financial system in 1987 and created the 'big bang'. Old Gordyboy's only mistake was not then re-regulating the banks, but we Tories managed to beat him down, with a lot of help from Uncle Rupert we scared labour into keeping things unregulated in case Uncle Rupert ruined their election chances with his newspapers. So don't you go crediting Labour with the deregulation of the banks, it was the blessed Saint Margaret, may she ever live in glory!

Saint Margaret had been absent for at least a decade, but don't let that get in the way of the usual socialist denail of responsibity. Light touch banking regulation was invented and inplemented by GB as chancellor. I believe uncle Rupert and his newspapers supported Labour from before the 1997 election and then for the next 10 years. Rupert might have had an angry telcon with GB but Labour did not need him to ruin their election chances. That was one job they were fully capable of doing for themselves.

Tommyrot! Here's the truth of it, our Darling Margaret deregulated the financial markets and the banks! http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Big_Bang_(f inancial_markets)

Nope, here is the truth of it. Banks operation in UK have to follow the corporate due dilligence procedures set out by the Bank of England. These would obviously include a mechanism of risk assessment for complex products. Since BofE is independent the Chancellor can only make recommendations (but that is a very small fig leaf). The deregulation of the financial markets in the 80's, which allowed public access to what was previously a closed market, is only remotely connected to this issue.

The deregulation of the financial markets and opening them up to unfettered free market is the absolute core that permitted the banks to run riot, and for so many of us to make an absolute killing in the process, Old Boy. I do wish you labour types would stop trying to steal we Conservatives thunder! We deregulated the markets, we deregulated the banks, we created the glorious financial free market, we created the ever expanding number of barely taxed UK millionaires. And now we're making things even better by taxing millionaires even less and making the peons at the bottom pay even more! Beautiful, isn't it? Never forget, 'There is no such thing as society.'

When your bedroom tax and the benefit cuts kick in, when people are losing their homes and can't feed their families and they take to the streets, the summer riots of 2011 are going to look like a pub fight compared to what the summer of 2013 may look like.

Well, at least you are not blaming Ted Heath for the poll tax riots, so some credit there.

stopmoaning1 wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Red Under Your Bed wrote:

David_Cameron wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

David_Cameron wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

David_Cameron wrote:

Alekhine wrote: The poisonous American sub-prime mortgage liabilities were sold on around the entire banking system as banks tried to lay off some of their risk. They were bundled together in a way that made it difficult for a bank to understand what what actually in them. i.e nobody really understood the risk - and what goes out of the front door comes in again at the back, circular style. The banking regulations which could have reduced the damage had already been effectively dumped by GB who had opted for a "light touch" banking regulation. Things can only get better (smoke and mirrors style)

I say, credit where it's due Old Boy! It was Saint Margaret - may she always be blessed - who deregulated our financial system in 1987 and created the 'big bang'. Old Gordyboy's only mistake was not then re-regulating the banks, but we Tories managed to beat him down, with a lot of help from Uncle Rupert we scared labour into keeping things unregulated in case Uncle Rupert ruined their election chances with his newspapers. So don't you go crediting Labour with the deregulation of the banks, it was the blessed Saint Margaret, may she ever live in glory!

Saint Margaret had been absent for at least a decade, but don't let that get in the way of the usual socialist denail of responsibity. Light touch banking regulation was invented and inplemented by GB as chancellor. I believe uncle Rupert and his newspapers supported Labour from before the 1997 election and then for the next 10 years. Rupert might have had an angry telcon with GB but Labour did not need him to ruin their election chances. That was one job they were fully capable of doing for themselves.

Tommyrot! Here's the truth of it, our Darling Margaret deregulated the financial markets and the banks! http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Big_Bang_(f inancial_markets)

Nope, here is the truth of it. Banks operation in UK have to follow the corporate due dilligence procedures set out by the Bank of England. These would obviously include a mechanism of risk assessment for complex products. Since BofE is independent the Chancellor can only make recommendations (but that is a very small fig leaf). The deregulation of the financial markets in the 80's, which allowed public access to what was previously a closed market, is only remotely connected to this issue.

The deregulation of the financial markets and opening them up to unfettered free market is the absolute core that permitted the banks to run riot, and for so many of us to make an absolute killing in the process, Old Boy. I do wish you labour types would stop trying to steal we Conservatives thunder! We deregulated the markets, we deregulated the banks, we created the glorious financial free market, we created the ever expanding number of barely taxed UK millionaires. And now we're making things even better by taxing millionaires even less and making the peons at the bottom pay even more! Beautiful, isn't it? Never forget, 'There is no such thing as society.'

When your bedroom tax and the benefit cuts kick in, when people are losing their homes and can't feed their families and they take to the streets, the summer riots of 2011 are going to look like a pub fight compared to what the summer of 2013 may look like.

Well, at least you are not blaming Ted Heath for the poll tax riots, so some credit there.

Thousands call for Southend's spy cars to be scrapped Comments anybody?

Alekhine wrote:
Give the town centre a boost and scrap them.

Alekhine wrote:

David_Cameron wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

David_Cameron wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

David_Cameron wrote:

Alekhine wrote: The poisonous American sub-prime mortgage liabilities were sold on around the entire banking system as banks tried to lay off some of their risk. They were bundled together in a way that made it difficult for a bank to understand what what actually in them. i.e nobody really understood the risk - and what goes out of the front door comes in again at the back, circular style. The banking regulations which could have reduced the damage had already been effectively dumped by GB who had opted for a "light touch" banking regulation. Things can only get better (smoke and mirrors style)

I say, credit where it's due Old Boy! It was Saint Margaret - may she always be blessed - who deregulated our financial system in 1987 and created the 'big bang'. Old Gordyboy's only mistake was not then re-regulating the banks, but we Tories managed to beat him down, with a lot of help from Uncle Rupert we scared labour into keeping things unregulated in case Uncle Rupert ruined their election chances with his newspapers. So don't you go crediting Labour with the deregulation of the banks, it was the blessed Saint Margaret, may she ever live in glory!

Saint Margaret had been absent for at least a decade, but don't let that get in the way of the usual socialist denail of responsibity. Light touch banking regulation was invented and inplemented by GB as chancellor. I believe uncle Rupert and his newspapers supported Labour from before the 1997 election and then for the next 10 years. Rupert might have had an angry telcon with GB but Labour did not need him to ruin their election chances. That was one job they were fully capable of doing for themselves.

Tommyrot! Here's the truth of it, our Darling Margaret deregulated the financial markets and the banks! http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Big_Bang_(f inancial_markets)

Nope, here is the truth of it. Banks operation in UK have to follow the corporate due dilligence procedures set out by the Bank of England. These would obviously include a mechanism of risk assessment for complex products. Since BofE is independent the Chancellor can only make recommendations (but that is a very small fig leaf). The deregulation of the financial markets in the 80's, which allowed public access to what was previously a closed market, is only remotely connected to this issue.

The deregulation of the financial markets and opening them up to unfettered free market is the absolute core that permitted the banks to run riot, and for so many of us to make an absolute killing in the process, Old Boy. I do wish you labour types would stop trying to steal we Conservatives thunder! We deregulated the markets, we deregulated the banks, we created the glorious financial free market, we created the ever expanding number of barely taxed UK millionaires. And now we're making things even better by taxing millionaires even less and making the peons at the bottom pay even more! Beautiful, isn't it? Never forget, 'There is no such thing as society.'

Well Old boy, why bother looking for the causes of the 2006 meltdown (they were'nt all in America) when you can just blame Thatcher?

Red Under Your Bed wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

David_Cameron wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

David_Cameron wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

David_Cameron wrote:

Alekhine wrote: The poisonous American sub-prime mortgage liabilities were sold on around the entire banking system as banks tried to lay off some of their risk. They were bundled together in a way that made it difficult for a bank to understand what what actually in them. i.e nobody really understood the risk - and what goes out of the front door comes in again at the back, circular style. The banking regulations which could have reduced the damage had already been effectively dumped by GB who had opted for a "light touch" banking regulation. Things can only get better (smoke and mirrors style)

I say, credit where it's due Old Boy! It was Saint Margaret - may she always be blessed - who deregulated our financial system in 1987 and created the 'big bang'. Old Gordyboy's only mistake was not then re-regulating the banks, but we Tories managed to beat him down, with a lot of help from Uncle Rupert we scared labour into keeping things unregulated in case Uncle Rupert ruined their election chances with his newspapers. So don't you go crediting Labour with the deregulation of the banks, it was the blessed Saint Margaret, may she ever live in glory!

Saint Margaret had been absent for at least a decade, but don't let that get in the way of the usual socialist denail of responsibity. Light touch banking regulation was invented and inplemented by GB as chancellor. I believe uncle Rupert and his newspapers supported Labour from before the 1997 election and then for the next 10 years. Rupert might have had an angry telcon with GB but Labour did not need him to ruin their election chances. That was one job they were fully capable of doing for themselves.

Tommyrot! Here's the truth of it, our Darling Margaret deregulated the financial markets and the banks! http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Big_Bang_(f inancial_markets)

Nope, here is the truth of it. Banks operation in UK have to follow the corporate due dilligence procedures set out by the Bank of England. These would obviously include a mechanism of risk assessment for complex products. Since BofE is independent the Chancellor can only make recommendations (but that is a very small fig leaf). The deregulation of the financial markets in the 80's, which allowed public access to what was previously a closed market, is only remotely connected to this issue.

The deregulation of the financial markets and opening them up to unfettered free market is the absolute core that permitted the banks to run riot, and for so many of us to make an absolute killing in the process, Old Boy. I do wish you labour types would stop trying to steal we Conservatives thunder! We deregulated the markets, we deregulated the banks, we created the glorious financial free market, we created the ever expanding number of barely taxed UK millionaires. And now we're making things even better by taxing millionaires even less and making the peons at the bottom pay even more! Beautiful, isn't it? Never forget, 'There is no such thing as society.'

Well Old boy, why bother looking for the causes of the 2006 meltdown (they were'nt all in America) when you can just blame Thatcher?

She deregulated the markets, she deregulated the banks. 'Free market competition' free from government interference. That was the tory dream, now its come home to roost.

stopmoaning1 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nigel Wise wrote:
As usual this article has been followed by several postings by people who obviously work in the parking department at Southend and the manufacturers of these vehicles. All of these people are in fear of losing their jobs if the 'spy cars' are taken off the road. This always happens when this type of article appears.
If you were to conduct a poll of the man in the street as I did in Richmond-upon-Thames you would find that over 90% of the public are against the use of these vehicles. They are BIG vote losers for those councils that use them.
In Richmond the vehicles were permanently removed from the roads after the new Parking Manager did a complete review of their operation. In short he determined that they were unnecessary. They are ONLY used to derive income. They do not address road saftey at all. An example of this was a motorist who was issued with 6 PCN's all of which arrived through his letter box en-block. The PCN's had all been issued for 'dropping off' his children at their school. The motorist was unaware that he was not allowed to stop briefly to do this. If a patrolling CEO had been there the CEO would have informed the driver on day one that he could not do it. Instead of doing this the CEO's in the 'Spy Car' were content to remain in their warm car day in and day out thereby putting children AT risk.
BTW Lord True the leader of Richmond Council has also seen to it that Richmond now has the fairest parking enforcement in the country. The words 'Spy Cars with their tinted windows' were used by Lord True when he announced the refunds.

I disagree. The parent parking illegally was putting children at risk.

I think we are too soft on illegal parking. The offence should be upgraded to include penalty points on licenses. That way those who don't learn from their mistakes will eventually be removed from the road, and those who do learn will park legally and no longer present a hazard to others.

Knowing how much you like to be factually correct, I’m surprised you have written this.
Unless the parents stopped on the zig zag’s (or red line if in London) it is legal to stop in order to set down or pick up passengers. ‘Parking’ is different.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

stopmoaning1 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nigel Wise wrote: As usual this article has been followed by several postings by people who obviously work in the parking department at Southend and the manufacturers of these vehicles. All of these people are in fear of losing their jobs if the 'spy cars' are taken off the road. This always happens when this type of article appears. If you were to conduct a poll of the man in the street as I did in Richmond-upon-Thames you would find that over 90% of the public are against the use of these vehicles. They are BIG vote losers for those councils that use them. In Richmond the vehicles were permanently removed from the roads after the new Parking Manager did a complete review of their operation. In short he determined that they were unnecessary. They are ONLY used to derive income. They do not address road saftey at all. An example of this was a motorist who was issued with 6 PCN's all of which arrived through his letter box en-block. The PCN's had all been issued for 'dropping off' his children at their school. The motorist was unaware that he was not allowed to stop briefly to do this. If a patrolling CEO had been there the CEO would have informed the driver on day one that he could not do it. Instead of doing this the CEO's in the 'Spy Car' were content to remain in their warm car day in and day out thereby putting children AT risk. BTW Lord True the leader of Richmond Council has also seen to it that Richmond now has the fairest parking enforcement in the country. The words 'Spy Cars with their tinted windows' were used by Lord True when he announced the refunds.

I disagree. The parent parking illegally was putting children at risk. I think we are too soft on illegal parking. The offence should be upgraded to include penalty points on licenses. That way those who don't learn from their mistakes will eventually be removed from the road, and those who do learn will park legally and no longer present a hazard to others.

Knowing how much you like to be factually correct, I’m surprised you have written this. Unless the parents stopped on the zig zag’s (or red line if in London) it is legal to stop in order to set down or pick up passengers. ‘Parking’ is different.

We're talking about yellow zigzags outside a school. You cannot stop to drop off or collect passengers on those.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

stopmoaning1 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nigel Wise wrote:
As usual this article has been followed by several postings by people who obviously work in the parking department at Southend and the manufacturers of these vehicles. All of these people are in fear of losing their jobs if the 'spy cars' are taken off the road. This always happens when this type of article appears.
If you were to conduct a poll of the man in the street as I did in Richmond-upon-Thames you would find that over 90% of the public are against the use of these vehicles. They are BIG vote losers for those councils that use them.
In Richmond the vehicles were permanently removed from the roads after the new Parking Manager did a complete review of their operation. In short he determined that they were unnecessary. They are ONLY used to derive income. They do not address road saftey at all. An example of this was a motorist who was issued with 6 PCN's all of which arrived through his letter box en-block. The PCN's had all been issued for 'dropping off' his children at their school. The motorist was unaware that he was not allowed to stop briefly to do this. If a patrolling CEO had been there the CEO would have informed the driver on day one that he could not do it. Instead of doing this the CEO's in the 'Spy Car' were content to remain in their warm car day in and day out thereby putting children AT risk.
BTW Lord True the leader of Richmond Council has also seen to it that Richmond now has the fairest parking enforcement in the country. The words 'Spy Cars with their tinted windows' were used by Lord True when he announced the refunds.

I disagree. The parent parking illegally was putting children at risk.

I think we are too soft on illegal parking. The offence should be upgraded to include penalty points on licenses. That way those who don't learn from their mistakes will eventually be removed from the road, and those who do learn will park legally and no longer present a hazard to others.

Knowing how much you like to be factually correct, I’m surprised you have written this.
Unless the parents stopped on the zig zag’s (or red line if in London) it is legal to stop in order to set down or pick up passengers. ‘Parking’ is different.

We're talking about yellow zigzags outside a school. You cannot stop to drop off or collect passengers on those.

stopmoaning1 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

stopmoaning1 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nigel Wise wrote:
As usual this article has been followed by several postings by people who obviously work in the parking department at Southend and the manufacturers of these vehicles. All of these people are in fear of losing their jobs if the 'spy cars' are taken off the road. This always happens when this type of article appears.
If you were to conduct a poll of the man in the street as I did in Richmond-upon-Thames you would find that over 90% of the public are against the use of these vehicles. They are BIG vote losers for those councils that use them.
In Richmond the vehicles were permanently removed from the roads after the new Parking Manager did a complete review of their operation. In short he determined that they were unnecessary. They are ONLY used to derive income. They do not address road saftey at all. An example of this was a motorist who was issued with 6 PCN's all of which arrived through his letter box en-block. The PCN's had all been issued for 'dropping off' his children at their school. The motorist was unaware that he was not allowed to stop briefly to do this. If a patrolling CEO had been there the CEO would have informed the driver on day one that he could not do it. Instead of doing this the CEO's in the 'Spy Car' were content to remain in their warm car day in and day out thereby putting children AT risk.
BTW Lord True the leader of Richmond Council has also seen to it that Richmond now has the fairest parking enforcement in the country. The words 'Spy Cars with their tinted windows' were used by Lord True when he announced the refunds.

I disagree. The parent parking illegally was putting children at risk.

I think we are too soft on illegal parking. The offence should be upgraded to include penalty points on licenses. That way those who don't learn from their mistakes will eventually be removed from the road, and those who do learn will park legally and no longer present a hazard to others.

Knowing how much you like to be factually correct, I’m surprised you have written this.
Unless the parents stopped on the zig zag’s (or red line if in London) it is legal to stop in order to set down or pick up passengers. ‘Parking’ is different.

We're talking about yellow zigzags outside a school. You cannot stop to drop off or collect passengers on those.

YES!
That's what I said

chunkus10 wrote:
this makes me laugh... sos will scrap the airshow and stop any other revenue comming to the town like the dreaded boy racers but want to keep spy cas that costs more than the air show... that brings in no money what so ever for local traders. infact they are keeping people away from our local taders!!... hmmm seems to me sbc REALLY are trying to kill our town off!

Nigel Wise wrote:
The 'spy cars' are driving local businesses and shops to the wall. The same thing was happening in Richmond. Previously closed down shops and businesses are now reopening in Richmond.
The loss of local businesses and shops is a blight on the local economy.
Loss of business rates to the Council is also not insignificant.
There will also be a significant loss of votes for any party that introduces or retains their use. In excess of 90% of the population are AGAINST their use. They are also unnecessary and are operated against the Secretary of States statutory guidance.

enjoi_baggy wrote:
It is quite simple really.

Scrap the cars.

Make www.yplac.com a government-endorsed public forum for naming and shaming those who park inconsiderately.

Job done.

Nigel Wise wrote:
The 'spy cars' are driving local businesses and shops to the wall. The same thing was happening in Richmond. Previously closed down shops and businesses are now reopening in Richmond. The loss of local businesses and shops is a blight on the local economy. Loss of business rates to the Council is also not insignificant. There will also be a significant loss of votes for any party that introduces or retains their use. In excess of 90% of the population are AGAINST their use. They are also unnecessary and are operated against the Secretary of States statutory guidance.

Nigel Wise wrote:
Conduct a street poll like I did. 90% of people ARE against these vehicles.
The 'positive reaction' and number of 'pro' posters on here are NOT representative. Most of them have a vested interest.
The cars DO close down businesses FACT. They ARE also BIG vote losers. Any authority that dispenses with them will GAIN votes.
There will be NO carnage or snarl ups in traffic when they are removed from the roads only harmony with the electorate. Bring back the personal face of the traffic warden (C.E.O.)

Nigel Wise wrote:
Conduct a street poll like I did. 90% of people ARE against these vehicles.
The 'positive reaction' and number of 'pro' posters on here are NOT representative. Most of them have a vested interest.
The cars DO close down businesses FACT. They ARE also BIG vote losers. Any authority that dispenses with them will GAIN votes.
There will be NO carnage or snarl ups in traffic when they are removed from the roads only harmony with the electorate. Bring back the personal face of the traffic warden (C.E.O.)