Masked bikers warn drivers about spy cars

Watching the CCTV car – Graeme Jones and Si Clark

Watching the CCTV car – Graeme Jones and Si Clark

First published in News by

CAMPAIGNERS are donning vigilante-style masks and taking to the streets of Southend warning motorists who are in danger of being nabbed by the council’s spy cars.

The group, known as No To Mob, are following the controversial CCTV cars around the borough on motorbikes, stopping to tell drivers parked illegally to move on – or get a fine.

The six masked men form part of a protest about the way the cars are being used and the rules under which they operate.

Their leader is trader Bob Wells, 52, who has led similar protests in Westminster and Bexley, Kent.

Mr Wells, owner of Printer and Cartridge Solutions in Woodgrange Drive, Southend, started his campaign following fears the spy car was driving vital custom away from his business.

He claims the car travels along the road past the stretch of shops at least once a day looking for illegal parkers. And therefore is not fulfilling its purpose.

Steve Baker, from Enfield, a member of the group, said: “We are not stopping the cars from doing their job. In fact, we are encouraging and helping them.

“If drivers are not parking illegally, then they won’t get caught.

“We are simply helping the spy car fulfil what the Secretary of State said in 2008, which was to get 100 per cent compliance, with no penalty charges.

“We also observed the cars to make sure they were not committing any offences themselves when they were out.”

Mr Wells launched his petition calling for a review on the controversial cars in April.

It has so far attracted more than 2,000 signatures from fed-up traders and residents.

He hopes No To Mob’s presence has caught the attention of council officials.

Mr Wells, of The Drive, Chalkwell, who has set up action group SOSSpyCar, said: “Traffic offences in the town need to be policed responsibly, and at the moment they are not.

“Many of the parking issues we have can be dealt with by traffic wardens.

“I support the car covering schools and clamping down on dangerous parking, but it seems by and large they are not doing this.”

Andrew Lewis, director for enterprise, tourism and the environment, at Southend Council said: “I am extremely concerned.

“The two civil enforcement officers found their presence extremely intimidating.

“Unfortunately, there was nothing we could do to prevent them from taking this action as they weren’t breaking the law.”

Comments (132)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:59am Mon 18 Jun 12

Red Hand Gang says...

Top man Mr Wells. I know where I will be getting my cartridges from from now on.
Top man Mr Wells. I know where I will be getting my cartridges from from now on. Red Hand Gang
  • Score: 11

9:01am Mon 18 Jun 12

Lefty Cyclist Type says...

Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.
Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable. Lefty Cyclist Type
  • Score: -34

9:02am Mon 18 Jun 12

Terry2says says...

Nice people.. Very good.. Well done ..
Nice people.. Very good.. Well done .. Terry2says
  • Score: 13

9:56am Mon 18 Jun 12

Bonky Badger says...

The Spy Cars do have the whiff of the Stasi about them.
The Spy Cars do have the whiff of the Stasi about them. Bonky Badger
  • Score: 7

10:23am Mon 18 Jun 12

Kentish Alex says...

Well done chaps. Excellent.
As for Andrew Lewis from SBC. These cars show an attitude towards drivers and the public that puts people off the town. How did we allow this Orwellian world to take hold?

A line needs to be drawn. These cars are that line. British law has traditionally been enforced by consent not machines.

If Mr Lewis really wants a “concern” why are those checking parking on motorbikes riding on L plates????

Given the dislike of these people I would have thought a full bike licence and experience of a bike would be vital to prevent “incidents”.
Well done chaps. Excellent. As for Andrew Lewis from SBC. These cars show an attitude towards drivers and the public that puts people off the town. How did we allow this Orwellian world to take hold? A line needs to be drawn. These cars are that line. British law has traditionally been enforced by consent not machines. If Mr Lewis really wants a “concern” why are those checking parking on motorbikes riding on L plates???? Given the dislike of these people I would have thought a full bike licence and experience of a bike would be vital to prevent “incidents”. Kentish Alex
  • Score: 5

10:37am Mon 18 Jun 12

All 9 of me says...

hardly 'vigilante ' masks
hardly 'vigilante ' masks All 9 of me
  • Score: 7

10:58am Mon 18 Jun 12

Alekhine says...

If Mr Lewis really wants a “concern” why are those checking parking on motorbikes riding on L plates????

Given the dislike of these people I would have thought a full bike licence and experience of a bike would be vital to prevent “incidents”.
.

Why do you dislike bikes? They are just people trying to get from A to B like you.

The reason these bikes are on L-Plate is probably because they are shared between many people.

The bike L-Plate does not mean the bikers experience can be measured in hours. A bike can be run on an L-Plate for years.
My local pizza delivery bike is an L-Plate but the rider is no learner (again its a shared bike).
If Mr Lewis really wants a “concern” why are those checking parking on motorbikes riding on L plates???? Given the dislike of these people I would have thought a full bike licence and experience of a bike would be vital to prevent “incidents”. . Why do you dislike bikes? They are just people trying to get from A to B like you. The reason these bikes are on L-Plate is probably because they are shared between many people. The bike L-Plate does not mean the bikers experience can be measured in hours. A bike can be run on an L-Plate for years. My local pizza delivery bike is an L-Plate but the rider is no learner (again its a shared bike). Alekhine
  • Score: 2

10:59am Mon 18 Jun 12

heartbeat says...

"Well done chaps. Excellent. As for Andrew Lewis from SBC. These cars show an attitude towards drivers and the public that puts people off the town. How did we allow this Orwellian world to take hold? A line needs to be drawn. These cars are that line. British law has traditionally been enforced by consent not machines."

Absolutely agree! Now maybe Mr. Lewis will understand how "intimidating" it is for motorists to have to deal with the "robotic", non-communicative spy cars.

Instances such as the person who had to leave an injured bird in the road for fear of getting "another" fine.....the motorist who received a fine for changing his tyre even though to carry on driving would have endangered himself and other road users....my own experiences of having to make an elderly relative in their 80s struggle to get their wheelie walker out of my car boot as I drop them near enough to the post office for them to be able to walk a little. I am presenting no hazard to other motorists or pedestrians whatsoever and the process takes me less than a minute but as well all know that is long enough to receive a fine from these highly intimidating robots. Yes I think wearing the masks and surveillance of the spy car drivers' activities are an EXCELLENT way of giving back tit for tat. Warning other unsuspecting motorists is wonderful too - they should be honoured in the next Queen's list for their caring services to their community.
"Well done chaps. Excellent. As for Andrew Lewis from SBC. These cars show an attitude towards drivers and the public that puts people off the town. How did we allow this Orwellian world to take hold? A line needs to be drawn. These cars are that line. British law has traditionally been enforced by consent not machines." Absolutely agree! Now maybe Mr. Lewis will understand how "intimidating" it is for motorists to have to deal with the "robotic", non-communicative spy cars. Instances such as the person who had to leave an injured bird in the road for fear of getting "another" fine.....the motorist who received a fine for changing his tyre even though to carry on driving would have endangered himself and other road users....my own experiences of having to make an elderly relative in their 80s struggle to get their wheelie walker out of my car boot as I drop them near enough to the post office for them to be able to walk a little. I am presenting no hazard to other motorists or pedestrians whatsoever and the process takes me less than a minute but as well all know that is long enough to receive a fine from these highly intimidating robots. Yes I think wearing the masks and surveillance of the spy car drivers' activities are an EXCELLENT way of giving back tit for tat. Warning other unsuspecting motorists is wonderful too - they should be honoured in the next Queen's list for their caring services to their community. heartbeat
  • Score: 10

11:01am Mon 18 Jun 12

Alekhine says...

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.
No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?
[quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.[/p][/quote]No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job? Alekhine
  • Score: 8

11:05am Mon 18 Jun 12

mr_happy says...

Good on them. I stoped on a bus stop outside the Palace Theatre the other evning, to drop of some equipment. It is the only place to do this. The stress involved just looking out for the spy cars is unjust.

People should be able to get on with their lives without this stress.
Good on them. I stoped on a bus stop outside the Palace Theatre the other evning, to drop of some equipment. It is the only place to do this. The stress involved just looking out for the spy cars is unjust. People should be able to get on with their lives without this stress. mr_happy
  • Score: 9

11:17am Mon 18 Jun 12

Lefty Cyclist Type says...

mr_happy wrote:
Good on them. I stoped on a bus stop outside the Palace Theatre the other evning, to drop of some equipment. It is the only place to do this. The stress involved just looking out for the spy cars is unjust.

People should be able to get on with their lives without this stress.
Or you could have carried the equipment a bit further.

Illegal parking is laziness and nothing but. People need to learn to use their legs to walk a little bit further.

I support these parking enforcement vehicles 100%.
[quote][p][bold]mr_happy[/bold] wrote: Good on them. I stoped on a bus stop outside the Palace Theatre the other evning, to drop of some equipment. It is the only place to do this. The stress involved just looking out for the spy cars is unjust. People should be able to get on with their lives without this stress.[/p][/quote]Or you could have carried the equipment a bit further. Illegal parking is laziness and nothing but. People need to learn to use their legs to walk a little bit further. I support these parking enforcement vehicles 100%. Lefty Cyclist Type
  • Score: -19

11:24am Mon 18 Jun 12

Lefty Cyclist Type says...

Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.
No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?
People don't learn not to park illegally by being 'tipped off'. It's the same mentality as warning drivers of police speed checks, all it does is enable the speeders to continue their dangerous driving.
All this will do is enable illegal parkers to continue parking illegally, just elsewhere.

I wonder if anyone here would be applauding these vigilantes if they were tipping off muggers to the presence of the police?
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.[/p][/quote]No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?[/p][/quote]People don't learn not to park illegally by being 'tipped off'. It's the same mentality as warning drivers of police speed checks, all it does is enable the speeders to continue their dangerous driving. All this will do is enable illegal parkers to continue parking illegally, just elsewhere. I wonder if anyone here would be applauding these vigilantes if they were tipping off muggers to the presence of the police? Lefty Cyclist Type
  • Score: -22

11:47am Mon 18 Jun 12

meldrew84 says...

mr_happy wrote:
Good on them. I stoped on a bus stop outside the Palace Theatre the other evning, to drop of some equipment. It is the only place to do this. The stress involved just looking out for the spy cars is unjust.

People should be able to get on with their lives without this stress.
Did you give as much concern as to whether there was a bus needing to use its own stop???!

Just last week my partner had to walk our small child into a main road to board a bus because a plonker like you couldn't be bothered to walk a few feet extra!

I have no need for these muppets on their bikes as i know better than to park illegally in the first place! Some of us actually took the time to learn the highway code and since we are RESPONSIBLE drivers, we tend to follow its rules!

The only people rooting for these guys are the people that think they have some god given right to do as they please on the roads....

If people wasn't doing wrong they wouldn't need these cars in the first place! So thank you to every illegally parked muppet for putting yet another cost on the tax payer!
[quote][p][bold]mr_happy[/bold] wrote: Good on them. I stoped on a bus stop outside the Palace Theatre the other evning, to drop of some equipment. It is the only place to do this. The stress involved just looking out for the spy cars is unjust. People should be able to get on with their lives without this stress.[/p][/quote]Did you give as much concern as to whether there was a bus needing to use its own stop???! Just last week my partner had to walk our small child into a main road to board a bus because a plonker like you couldn't be bothered to walk a few feet extra! I have no need for these muppets on their bikes as i know better than to park illegally in the first place! Some of us actually took the time to learn the highway code and since we are RESPONSIBLE drivers, we tend to follow its rules! The only people rooting for these guys are the people that think they have some god given right to do as they please on the roads.... If people wasn't doing wrong they wouldn't need these cars in the first place! So thank you to every illegally parked muppet for putting yet another cost on the tax payer! meldrew84
  • Score: -7

11:49am Mon 18 Jun 12

meldrew84 says...

And perhaps Mr Wells should look into premises with parking facilities instead of encouraging illegal parking just to profit himself!
And perhaps Mr Wells should look into premises with parking facilities instead of encouraging illegal parking just to profit himself! meldrew84
  • Score: 2

11:50am Mon 18 Jun 12

heartbeat says...

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
mr_happy wrote:
Good on them. I stoped on a bus stop outside the Palace Theatre the other evning, to drop of some equipment. It is the only place to do this. The stress involved just looking out for the spy cars is unjust.

People should be able to get on with their lives without this stress.
Or you could have carried the equipment a bit further.

Illegal parking is laziness and nothing but. People need to learn to use their legs to walk a little bit further.

I support these parking enforcement vehicles 100%.
I don't understand how parking (safely, though according to Council parking restrictions "illegally" if, for instance parking is restricted for a certain hour of the day because of being near a station or whatever) to rescue an injured bird from almost certain death can be construed as "laziness".

Would it be considered "laziness" to stop if a dog or cat was lying injured in the road? Or a child? Or a cyclist? Does common sense ever override the need to behave 100% legally?

I do not understand how stopping in similar circumstances to change a dangerous tyre (if driving further may be endangering lives) can be considered "laziness" either.
[quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mr_happy[/bold] wrote: Good on them. I stoped on a bus stop outside the Palace Theatre the other evning, to drop of some equipment. It is the only place to do this. The stress involved just looking out for the spy cars is unjust. People should be able to get on with their lives without this stress.[/p][/quote]Or you could have carried the equipment a bit further. Illegal parking is laziness and nothing but. People need to learn to use their legs to walk a little bit further. I support these parking enforcement vehicles 100%.[/p][/quote]I don't understand how parking (safely, though according to Council parking restrictions "illegally" if, for instance parking is restricted for a certain hour of the day because of being near a station or whatever) to rescue an injured bird from almost certain death can be construed as "laziness". Would it be considered "laziness" to stop if a dog or cat was lying injured in the road? Or a child? Or a cyclist? Does common sense ever override the need to behave 100% legally? I do not understand how stopping in similar circumstances to change a dangerous tyre (if driving further may be endangering lives) can be considered "laziness" either. heartbeat
  • Score: 5

11:51am Mon 18 Jun 12

JuliaM says...

Ahhh, we can clearly see 'Lefty Cyclist Type' yearns for the smack of firm government, like all his breed!

Just put it down to Cameron's 'The Big Society' in action ... ;)
Ahhh, we can clearly see 'Lefty Cyclist Type' yearns for the smack of firm government, like all his breed! Just put it down to Cameron's 'The Big Society' in action ... ;) JuliaM
  • Score: 1

11:56am Mon 18 Jun 12

heartbeat says...

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.
No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?
People don't learn not to park illegally by being 'tipped off'. It's the same mentality as warning drivers of police speed checks, all it does is enable the speeders to continue their dangerous driving.
All this will do is enable illegal parkers to continue parking illegally, just elsewhere.

I wonder if anyone here would be applauding these vigilantes if they were tipping off muggers to the presence of the police?
I totally agree regarding the speeding issue. I don't see the point in drivers being warned where speed "traps" are, that just makes things worse as they speed until they get to areas which they know are being watched, slow down, then speed off again. Ridiculous! I have NO problem with speed cameras and think they should be made less easily visible, not more.
[quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.[/p][/quote]No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?[/p][/quote]People don't learn not to park illegally by being 'tipped off'. It's the same mentality as warning drivers of police speed checks, all it does is enable the speeders to continue their dangerous driving. All this will do is enable illegal parkers to continue parking illegally, just elsewhere. I wonder if anyone here would be applauding these vigilantes if they were tipping off muggers to the presence of the police?[/p][/quote]I totally agree regarding the speeding issue. I don't see the point in drivers being warned where speed "traps" are, that just makes things worse as they speed until they get to areas which they know are being watched, slow down, then speed off again. Ridiculous! I have NO problem with speed cameras and think they should be made less easily visible, not more. heartbeat
  • Score: -3

11:59am Mon 18 Jun 12

locallife says...

heartbeat wrote:
"Well done chaps. Excellent. As for Andrew Lewis from SBC. These cars show an attitude towards drivers and the public that puts people off the town. How did we allow this Orwellian world to take hold? A line needs to be drawn. These cars are that line. British law has traditionally been enforced by consent not machines."

Absolutely agree! Now maybe Mr. Lewis will understand how "intimidating" it is for motorists to have to deal with the "robotic", non-communicative spy cars.

Instances such as the person who had to leave an injured bird in the road for fear of getting "another" fine.....the motorist who received a fine for changing his tyre even though to carry on driving would have endangered himself and other road users....my own experiences of having to make an elderly relative in their 80s struggle to get their wheelie walker out of my car boot as I drop them near enough to the post office for them to be able to walk a little. I am presenting no hazard to other motorists or pedestrians whatsoever and the process takes me less than a minute but as well all know that is long enough to receive a fine from these highly intimidating robots. Yes I think wearing the masks and surveillance of the spy car drivers' activities are an EXCELLENT way of giving back tit for tat. Warning other unsuspecting motorists is wonderful too - they should be honoured in the next Queen's list for their caring services to their community.
How many people are parked illegally coz of genuine reasons tho? i'd take a guess at about 5%. The rest just can't be arsed to walk 2 mins extra to the shop or pay for parking. This lot could be a hazard to motorrists aswell, people should be concentrating on driving not being distracted by these tits in their halloween masks giving out parking advice surely?
[quote][p][bold]heartbeat[/bold] wrote: "Well done chaps. Excellent. As for Andrew Lewis from SBC. These cars show an attitude towards drivers and the public that puts people off the town. How did we allow this Orwellian world to take hold? A line needs to be drawn. These cars are that line. British law has traditionally been enforced by consent not machines." Absolutely agree! Now maybe Mr. Lewis will understand how "intimidating" it is for motorists to have to deal with the "robotic", non-communicative spy cars. Instances such as the person who had to leave an injured bird in the road for fear of getting "another" fine.....the motorist who received a fine for changing his tyre even though to carry on driving would have endangered himself and other road users....my own experiences of having to make an elderly relative in their 80s struggle to get their wheelie walker out of my car boot as I drop them near enough to the post office for them to be able to walk a little. I am presenting no hazard to other motorists or pedestrians whatsoever and the process takes me less than a minute but as well all know that is long enough to receive a fine from these highly intimidating robots. Yes I think wearing the masks and surveillance of the spy car drivers' activities are an EXCELLENT way of giving back tit for tat. Warning other unsuspecting motorists is wonderful too - they should be honoured in the next Queen's list for their caring services to their community.[/p][/quote]How many people are parked illegally coz of genuine reasons tho? i'd take a guess at about 5%. The rest just can't be arsed to walk 2 mins extra to the shop or pay for parking. This lot could be a hazard to motorrists aswell, people should be concentrating on driving not being distracted by these tits in their halloween masks giving out parking advice surely? locallife
  • Score: -1

12:03pm Mon 18 Jun 12

R85 says...

Are they affiliated with anonymous with those masks on?
Are they affiliated with anonymous with those masks on? R85
  • Score: 1

12:13pm Mon 18 Jun 12

R85 says...

All 9 of me wrote:
hardly 'vigilante ' masks
They are though! They’ve been used by protestors (Occupy movement)/vigilante groups and the worldwide hacking group anonymous for years! I associate them with anonymous mostly – They’ve hacked everything on the planet for one “vigilante” reason or another (this could be anything such as the restriction of data, as they believe that information/data whatever should be free and available to anyone on the planet – this includes illegal downloads)! To name a few they’ve hacked the CIA, Brazilian president, various cyber security firms, SOCA, FBI, Scientology, various governments etc …Theres also rumours that it was anonymous hackers that managed to extract the top secret US Army/Iraq war documents (over 250,000 pages) from confidential sources on behalf of wikileaks/Julian Assange! I think the US government are still trying to prove a link!?

They make it seem like theres absolutely nothing that can’t be hacked. Supposedly they’ve caused hundreds of millions if not billions of damage!
[quote][p][bold]All 9 of me[/bold] wrote: hardly 'vigilante ' masks[/p][/quote]They are though! They’ve been used by protestors (Occupy movement)/vigilante groups and the worldwide hacking group anonymous for years! I associate them with anonymous mostly – They’ve hacked everything on the planet for one “vigilante” reason or another (this could be anything such as the restriction of data, as they believe that information/data whatever should be free and available to anyone on the planet – this includes illegal downloads)! To name a few they’ve hacked the CIA, Brazilian president, various cyber security firms, SOCA, FBI, Scientology, various governments etc …Theres also rumours that it was anonymous hackers that managed to extract the top secret US Army/Iraq war documents (over 250,000 pages) from confidential sources on behalf of wikileaks/Julian Assange! I think the US government are still trying to prove a link!? They make it seem like theres absolutely nothing that can’t be hacked. Supposedly they’ve caused hundreds of millions if not billions of damage! R85
  • Score: 2

12:13pm Mon 18 Jun 12

Alekhine says...

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.
No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?
People don't learn not to park illegally by being 'tipped off'. It's the same mentality as warning drivers of police speed checks, all it does is enable the speeders to continue their dangerous driving. All this will do is enable illegal parkers to continue parking illegally, just elsewhere. I wonder if anyone here would be applauding these vigilantes if they were tipping off muggers to the presence of the police?
Muggers?-Hardly the same thing but then why let reason get in the way of your opinion.
.
Parking rules are meant to be first and foremost about road / pavement safety. These guys are getting illegal parkers to move on quickly. That can only be a good thing. Does the spy car move an illegally parked car? No - why bother moving it when you can fine it and leave it there.
[quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.[/p][/quote]No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?[/p][/quote]People don't learn not to park illegally by being 'tipped off'. It's the same mentality as warning drivers of police speed checks, all it does is enable the speeders to continue their dangerous driving. All this will do is enable illegal parkers to continue parking illegally, just elsewhere. I wonder if anyone here would be applauding these vigilantes if they were tipping off muggers to the presence of the police?[/p][/quote]Muggers?-Hardly the same thing but then why let reason get in the way of your opinion. . Parking rules are meant to be first and foremost about road / pavement safety. These guys are getting illegal parkers to move on quickly. That can only be a good thing. Does the spy car move an illegally parked car? No - why bother moving it when you can fine it and leave it there. Alekhine
  • Score: 4

12:20pm Mon 18 Jun 12

Lefty Cyclist Type says...

Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.
No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?
People don't learn not to park illegally by being 'tipped off'. It's the same mentality as warning drivers of police speed checks, all it does is enable the speeders to continue their dangerous driving. All this will do is enable illegal parkers to continue parking illegally, just elsewhere. I wonder if anyone here would be applauding these vigilantes if they were tipping off muggers to the presence of the police?
Muggers?-Hardly the same thing but then why let reason get in the way of your opinion.
.
Parking rules are meant to be first and foremost about road / pavement safety. These guys are getting illegal parkers to move on quickly. That can only be a good thing. Does the spy car move an illegally parked car? No - why bother moving it when you can fine it and leave it there.
What the parking enforcement car does is ensure a fine is issued and the illegal parker thinks twice before parking illegally again. Tipping them off does not achieve that.
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.[/p][/quote]No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?[/p][/quote]People don't learn not to park illegally by being 'tipped off'. It's the same mentality as warning drivers of police speed checks, all it does is enable the speeders to continue their dangerous driving. All this will do is enable illegal parkers to continue parking illegally, just elsewhere. I wonder if anyone here would be applauding these vigilantes if they were tipping off muggers to the presence of the police?[/p][/quote]Muggers?-Hardly the same thing but then why let reason get in the way of your opinion. . Parking rules are meant to be first and foremost about road / pavement safety. These guys are getting illegal parkers to move on quickly. That can only be a good thing. Does the spy car move an illegally parked car? No - why bother moving it when you can fine it and leave it there.[/p][/quote]What the parking enforcement car does is ensure a fine is issued and the illegal parker thinks twice before parking illegally again. Tipping them off does not achieve that. Lefty Cyclist Type
  • Score: -7

12:54pm Mon 18 Jun 12

rjsizzler says...

"He claims the car travels along the road past the stretch of shops at least once a day looking for illegal parkers. And therefore is not fulfilling its purpose."

Am I missing something here? The car's job is to look for illegal parkers which it sounds like it's doing (whether you agree with the priciple or not)!
"He claims the car travels along the road past the stretch of shops at least once a day looking for illegal parkers. And therefore is not fulfilling its purpose." Am I missing something here? The car's job is to look for illegal parkers which it sounds like it's doing (whether you agree with the priciple or not)! rjsizzler
  • Score: 5

12:57pm Mon 18 Jun 12

Barry_Shitpeas says...

Just been to their website which has a membership of 474. Bearing in mind that this group of jokers have been going for a while now I would suggest that this volume of members is an indication of overall lack of support or general apathy the population as a whole has towards their agenda. Also, after reading some of the posts it's asthough there is a worrying delusional element who seem to think that they are spearheading a 'Martin Luther' style struggle. Get a grip.
Just been to their website which has a membership of 474. Bearing in mind that this group of jokers have been going for a while now I would suggest that this volume of members is an indication of overall lack of support or general apathy the population as a whole has towards their agenda. Also, after reading some of the posts it's asthough there is a worrying delusional element who seem to think that they are spearheading a 'Martin Luther' style struggle. Get a grip. Barry_Shitpeas
  • Score: -2

1:12pm Mon 18 Jun 12

Alekhine says...

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.
No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?
People don't learn not to park illegally by being 'tipped off'. It's the same mentality as warning drivers of police speed checks, all it does is enable the speeders to continue their dangerous driving. All this will do is enable illegal parkers to continue parking illegally, just elsewhere. I wonder if anyone here would be applauding these vigilantes if they were tipping off muggers to the presence of the police?
Muggers?-Hardly the same thing but then why let reason get in the way of your opinion. . Parking rules are meant to be first and foremost about road / pavement safety. These guys are getting illegal parkers to move on quickly. That can only be a good thing. Does the spy car move an illegally parked car? No - why bother moving it when you can fine it and leave it there.
What the parking enforcement car does is ensure a fine is issued and the illegal parker thinks twice before parking illegally again. Tipping them off does not achieve that.
Do you think that a 25 or even 50 pound fine is going to deter someone who can afford to buy and run £50,000 worth of Range Rover? Absolute rubbish. Most of them will just pass it on as expenses anyway.
.
What you have just proved with your last is that the spy car is about revenue not road safety.
.
[quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.[/p][/quote]No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?[/p][/quote]People don't learn not to park illegally by being 'tipped off'. It's the same mentality as warning drivers of police speed checks, all it does is enable the speeders to continue their dangerous driving. All this will do is enable illegal parkers to continue parking illegally, just elsewhere. I wonder if anyone here would be applauding these vigilantes if they were tipping off muggers to the presence of the police?[/p][/quote]Muggers?-Hardly the same thing but then why let reason get in the way of your opinion. . Parking rules are meant to be first and foremost about road / pavement safety. These guys are getting illegal parkers to move on quickly. That can only be a good thing. Does the spy car move an illegally parked car? No - why bother moving it when you can fine it and leave it there.[/p][/quote]What the parking enforcement car does is ensure a fine is issued and the illegal parker thinks twice before parking illegally again. Tipping them off does not achieve that.[/p][/quote]Do you think that a 25 or even 50 pound fine is going to deter someone who can afford to buy and run £50,000 worth of Range Rover? Absolute rubbish. Most of them will just pass it on as expenses anyway. . What you have just proved with your last is that the spy car is about revenue not road safety. . Alekhine
  • Score: 4

1:30pm Mon 18 Jun 12

Lefty Cyclist Type says...

Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.
No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?
People don't learn not to park illegally by being 'tipped off'. It's the same mentality as warning drivers of police speed checks, all it does is enable the speeders to continue their dangerous driving. All this will do is enable illegal parkers to continue parking illegally, just elsewhere. I wonder if anyone here would be applauding these vigilantes if they were tipping off muggers to the presence of the police?
Muggers?-Hardly the same thing but then why let reason get in the way of your opinion. . Parking rules are meant to be first and foremost about road / pavement safety. These guys are getting illegal parkers to move on quickly. That can only be a good thing. Does the spy car move an illegally parked car? No - why bother moving it when you can fine it and leave it there.
What the parking enforcement car does is ensure a fine is issued and the illegal parker thinks twice before parking illegally again. Tipping them off does not achieve that.
Do you think that a 25 or even 50 pound fine is going to deter someone who can afford to buy and run £50,000 worth of Range Rover? Absolute rubbish. Most of them will just pass it on as expenses anyway.
.
What you have just proved with your last is that the spy car is about revenue not road safety.
.
The parking enforcement vehicles only fine those who are illegally parked. That's all good in my book.

Very few illegally parked cars I see are high-end w@nkpanzers as you suggest. They are ordinary saloons.

You raise a good point though. I would fully support illegal parking becoming an endorsable offence. Start slapping points on peoples' licences for it. That would be a stronger deterrent.
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.[/p][/quote]No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?[/p][/quote]People don't learn not to park illegally by being 'tipped off'. It's the same mentality as warning drivers of police speed checks, all it does is enable the speeders to continue their dangerous driving. All this will do is enable illegal parkers to continue parking illegally, just elsewhere. I wonder if anyone here would be applauding these vigilantes if they were tipping off muggers to the presence of the police?[/p][/quote]Muggers?-Hardly the same thing but then why let reason get in the way of your opinion. . Parking rules are meant to be first and foremost about road / pavement safety. These guys are getting illegal parkers to move on quickly. That can only be a good thing. Does the spy car move an illegally parked car? No - why bother moving it when you can fine it and leave it there.[/p][/quote]What the parking enforcement car does is ensure a fine is issued and the illegal parker thinks twice before parking illegally again. Tipping them off does not achieve that.[/p][/quote]Do you think that a 25 or even 50 pound fine is going to deter someone who can afford to buy and run £50,000 worth of Range Rover? Absolute rubbish. Most of them will just pass it on as expenses anyway. . What you have just proved with your last is that the spy car is about revenue not road safety. .[/p][/quote]The parking enforcement vehicles only fine those who are illegally parked. That's all good in my book. Very few illegally parked cars I see are high-end w@nkpanzers as you suggest. They are ordinary saloons. You raise a good point though. I would fully support illegal parking becoming an endorsable offence. Start slapping points on peoples' licences for it. That would be a stronger deterrent. Lefty Cyclist Type
  • Score: -5

1:43pm Mon 18 Jun 12

Joe Hune says...

Mr Wells encourages pathetic idiots like these to race around the streets of Southend trying to catch these CCTV cars up! The motorbike riders were witnessed going over Red traffic lights and riding on the wrong side of the road, just to catch up with the CCTV car driver.

I have been on their website today and you see comments from other bikers stating that they will come to Southend next time!! So before we know it we will have loads of bikers chasing round after people just trying to do their job!

Mr Wells you are an idiot if you think that 2 CCTV cars are doing anything to your business! Do you think the people of Greece will blame the CCTV cars as well??

The quickest way to put these cars out of business, if that is what is really needed is to stop parking illigally, it's not rocket science!
Mr Wells encourages pathetic idiots like these to race around the streets of Southend trying to catch these CCTV cars up! The motorbike riders were witnessed going over Red traffic lights and riding on the wrong side of the road, just to catch up with the CCTV car driver. I have been on their website today and you see comments from other bikers stating that they will come to Southend next time!! So before we know it we will have loads of bikers chasing round after people just trying to do their job! Mr Wells you are an idiot if you think that 2 CCTV cars are doing anything to your business! Do you think the people of Greece will blame the CCTV cars as well?? The quickest way to put these cars out of business, if that is what is really needed is to stop parking illigally, it's not rocket science! Joe Hune
  • Score: 1

1:53pm Mon 18 Jun 12

Joe Hune says...

meldrew84 wrote:
And perhaps Mr Wells should look into premises with parking facilities instead of encouraging illegal parking just to profit himself!
Just shows what a great business man Mr Wells is to pick a premises without parking!

The lights are on, but obviously nobody was home when he thought opening a shop in this location without any parking was good!

So because I haven't got anything else to do Mr Wells thinks he will invite a load of sad old bikers to Southend to do his dirty work for him!

Get a life Mr Wells!!
[quote][p][bold]meldrew84[/bold] wrote: And perhaps Mr Wells should look into premises with parking facilities instead of encouraging illegal parking just to profit himself![/p][/quote]Just shows what a great business man Mr Wells is to pick a premises without parking! The lights are on, but obviously nobody was home when he thought opening a shop in this location without any parking was good! So because I haven't got anything else to do Mr Wells thinks he will invite a load of sad old bikers to Southend to do his dirty work for him! Get a life Mr Wells!! Joe Hune
  • Score: -2

2:00pm Mon 18 Jun 12

Joe Hune says...

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.
Totally agree! If I was driving and I constantly had 3 or 4 bikers on my tail it could cause a lack of concentration and an accident to happen!

I can't believe an Independant Councillor is backing this behaviour. So sad how some people will do anything to get at the Conservatives!
[quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.[/p][/quote]Totally agree! If I was driving and I constantly had 3 or 4 bikers on my tail it could cause a lack of concentration and an accident to happen! I can't believe an Independant Councillor is backing this behaviour. So sad how some people will do anything to get at the Conservatives! Joe Hune
  • Score: -4

2:06pm Mon 18 Jun 12

emcee says...

Joe Hune wrote:
meldrew84 wrote:
And perhaps Mr Wells should look into premises with parking facilities instead of encouraging illegal parking just to profit himself!
Just shows what a great business man Mr Wells is to pick a premises without parking!

The lights are on, but obviously nobody was home when he thought opening a shop in this location without any parking was good!

So because I haven't got anything else to do Mr Wells thinks he will invite a load of sad old bikers to Southend to do his dirty work for him!

Get a life Mr Wells!!
Maybe Mr Wells had the premises long before the parking restrictions were as they are.
[quote][p][bold]Joe Hune[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]meldrew84[/bold] wrote: And perhaps Mr Wells should look into premises with parking facilities instead of encouraging illegal parking just to profit himself![/p][/quote]Just shows what a great business man Mr Wells is to pick a premises without parking! The lights are on, but obviously nobody was home when he thought opening a shop in this location without any parking was good! So because I haven't got anything else to do Mr Wells thinks he will invite a load of sad old bikers to Southend to do his dirty work for him! Get a life Mr Wells!![/p][/quote]Maybe Mr Wells had the premises long before the parking restrictions were as they are. emcee
  • Score: 4

2:09pm Mon 18 Jun 12

Alekhine says...

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.
No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?
People don't learn not to park illegally by being 'tipped off'. It's the same mentality as warning drivers of police speed checks, all it does is enable the speeders to continue their dangerous driving. All this will do is enable illegal parkers to continue parking illegally, just elsewhere. I wonder if anyone here would be applauding these vigilantes if they were tipping off muggers to the presence of the police?
Muggers?-Hardly the same thing but then why let reason get in the way of your opinion. . Parking rules are meant to be first and foremost about road / pavement safety. These guys are getting illegal parkers to move on quickly. That can only be a good thing. Does the spy car move an illegally parked car? No - why bother moving it when you can fine it and leave it there.
What the parking enforcement car does is ensure a fine is issued and the illegal parker thinks twice before parking illegally again. Tipping them off does not achieve that.
Do you think that a 25 or even 50 pound fine is going to deter someone who can afford to buy and run £50,000 worth of Range Rover? Absolute rubbish. Most of them will just pass it on as expenses anyway. . What you have just proved with your last is that the spy car is about revenue not road safety. .
The parking enforcement vehicles only fine those who are illegally parked. That's all good in my book. Very few illegally parked cars I see are high-end w@nkpanzers as you suggest. They are ordinary saloons. You raise a good point though. I would fully support illegal parking becoming an endorsable offence. Start slapping points on peoples' licences for it. That would be a stronger deterrent.
I would agree with that.
.
So long as the meaningless fine is dropped to remove the financial motivation and we can all see that it is about road safety.
[quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.[/p][/quote]No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?[/p][/quote]People don't learn not to park illegally by being 'tipped off'. It's the same mentality as warning drivers of police speed checks, all it does is enable the speeders to continue their dangerous driving. All this will do is enable illegal parkers to continue parking illegally, just elsewhere. I wonder if anyone here would be applauding these vigilantes if they were tipping off muggers to the presence of the police?[/p][/quote]Muggers?-Hardly the same thing but then why let reason get in the way of your opinion. . Parking rules are meant to be first and foremost about road / pavement safety. These guys are getting illegal parkers to move on quickly. That can only be a good thing. Does the spy car move an illegally parked car? No - why bother moving it when you can fine it and leave it there.[/p][/quote]What the parking enforcement car does is ensure a fine is issued and the illegal parker thinks twice before parking illegally again. Tipping them off does not achieve that.[/p][/quote]Do you think that a 25 or even 50 pound fine is going to deter someone who can afford to buy and run £50,000 worth of Range Rover? Absolute rubbish. Most of them will just pass it on as expenses anyway. . What you have just proved with your last is that the spy car is about revenue not road safety. .[/p][/quote]The parking enforcement vehicles only fine those who are illegally parked. That's all good in my book. Very few illegally parked cars I see are high-end w@nkpanzers as you suggest. They are ordinary saloons. You raise a good point though. I would fully support illegal parking becoming an endorsable offence. Start slapping points on peoples' licences for it. That would be a stronger deterrent.[/p][/quote]I would agree with that. . So long as the meaningless fine is dropped to remove the financial motivation and we can all see that it is about road safety. Alekhine
  • Score: 5

2:43pm Mon 18 Jun 12

Lefty Cyclist Type says...

Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.
No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?
People don't learn not to park illegally by being 'tipped off'. It's the same mentality as warning drivers of police speed checks, all it does is enable the speeders to continue their dangerous driving. All this will do is enable illegal parkers to continue parking illegally, just elsewhere. I wonder if anyone here would be applauding these vigilantes if they were tipping off muggers to the presence of the police?
Muggers?-Hardly the same thing but then why let reason get in the way of your opinion. . Parking rules are meant to be first and foremost about road / pavement safety. These guys are getting illegal parkers to move on quickly. That can only be a good thing. Does the spy car move an illegally parked car? No - why bother moving it when you can fine it and leave it there.
What the parking enforcement car does is ensure a fine is issued and the illegal parker thinks twice before parking illegally again. Tipping them off does not achieve that.
Do you think that a 25 or even 50 pound fine is going to deter someone who can afford to buy and run £50,000 worth of Range Rover? Absolute rubbish. Most of them will just pass it on as expenses anyway. . What you have just proved with your last is that the spy car is about revenue not road safety. .
The parking enforcement vehicles only fine those who are illegally parked. That's all good in my book. Very few illegally parked cars I see are high-end w@nkpanzers as you suggest. They are ordinary saloons. You raise a good point though. I would fully support illegal parking becoming an endorsable offence. Start slapping points on peoples' licences for it. That would be a stronger deterrent.
I would agree with that.
.
So long as the meaningless fine is dropped to remove the financial motivation and we can all see that it is about road safety.
No. Endorsement AND fine, like most other traffic violations.

What are you not getting? The only people being fined are those who break the law. There is nothing wrong with that. It is easily avoidable by parking legally. Or are you saying we should be soft on lawbreakers?
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.[/p][/quote]No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?[/p][/quote]People don't learn not to park illegally by being 'tipped off'. It's the same mentality as warning drivers of police speed checks, all it does is enable the speeders to continue their dangerous driving. All this will do is enable illegal parkers to continue parking illegally, just elsewhere. I wonder if anyone here would be applauding these vigilantes if they were tipping off muggers to the presence of the police?[/p][/quote]Muggers?-Hardly the same thing but then why let reason get in the way of your opinion. . Parking rules are meant to be first and foremost about road / pavement safety. These guys are getting illegal parkers to move on quickly. That can only be a good thing. Does the spy car move an illegally parked car? No - why bother moving it when you can fine it and leave it there.[/p][/quote]What the parking enforcement car does is ensure a fine is issued and the illegal parker thinks twice before parking illegally again. Tipping them off does not achieve that.[/p][/quote]Do you think that a 25 or even 50 pound fine is going to deter someone who can afford to buy and run £50,000 worth of Range Rover? Absolute rubbish. Most of them will just pass it on as expenses anyway. . What you have just proved with your last is that the spy car is about revenue not road safety. .[/p][/quote]The parking enforcement vehicles only fine those who are illegally parked. That's all good in my book. Very few illegally parked cars I see are high-end w@nkpanzers as you suggest. They are ordinary saloons. You raise a good point though. I would fully support illegal parking becoming an endorsable offence. Start slapping points on peoples' licences for it. That would be a stronger deterrent.[/p][/quote]I would agree with that. . So long as the meaningless fine is dropped to remove the financial motivation and we can all see that it is about road safety.[/p][/quote]No. Endorsement AND fine, like most other traffic violations. What are you not getting? The only people being fined are those who break the law. There is nothing wrong with that. It is easily avoidable by parking legally. Or are you saying we should be soft on lawbreakers? Lefty Cyclist Type
  • Score: -5

3:02pm Mon 18 Jun 12

Alekhine says...

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.
No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?
People don't learn not to park illegally by being 'tipped off'. It's the same mentality as warning drivers of police speed checks, all it does is enable the speeders to continue their dangerous driving. All this will do is enable illegal parkers to continue parking illegally, just elsewhere. I wonder if anyone here would be applauding these vigilantes if they were tipping off muggers to the presence of the police?
Muggers?-Hardly the same thing but then why let reason get in the way of your opinion. . Parking rules are meant to be first and foremost about road / pavement safety. These guys are getting illegal parkers to move on quickly. That can only be a good thing. Does the spy car move an illegally parked car? No - why bother moving it when you can fine it and leave it there.
What the parking enforcement car does is ensure a fine is issued and the illegal parker thinks twice before parking illegally again. Tipping them off does not achieve that.
Do you think that a 25 or even 50 pound fine is going to deter someone who can afford to buy and run £50,000 worth of Range Rover? Absolute rubbish. Most of them will just pass it on as expenses anyway. . What you have just proved with your last is that the spy car is about revenue not road safety. .
The parking enforcement vehicles only fine those who are illegally parked. That's all good in my book. Very few illegally parked cars I see are high-end w@nkpanzers as you suggest. They are ordinary saloons. You raise a good point though. I would fully support illegal parking becoming an endorsable offence. Start slapping points on peoples' licences for it. That would be a stronger deterrent.
I would agree with that. . So long as the meaningless fine is dropped to remove the financial motivation and we can all see that it is about road safety.
No. Endorsement AND fine, like most other traffic violations. What are you not getting? The only people being fined are those who break the law. There is nothing wrong with that. It is easily avoidable by parking legally. Or are you saying we should be soft on lawbreakers?
Points on licence is not soft on lawbreakers and it is the only way that wil change behaviour. The fine as it stands is pointless. It says to people, Park illegally if you can afford it, and then leave the car there all day as you are not going to get fined again. Thats not good for road safety (which is the reason for law), so what is the point in maintaining the fine if your going to give points and then remove the car from the road?
.
If the council are really that strapped for cash they sould look at all the cyclists who break every rule in the book.
[quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.[/p][/quote]No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?[/p][/quote]People don't learn not to park illegally by being 'tipped off'. It's the same mentality as warning drivers of police speed checks, all it does is enable the speeders to continue their dangerous driving. All this will do is enable illegal parkers to continue parking illegally, just elsewhere. I wonder if anyone here would be applauding these vigilantes if they were tipping off muggers to the presence of the police?[/p][/quote]Muggers?-Hardly the same thing but then why let reason get in the way of your opinion. . Parking rules are meant to be first and foremost about road / pavement safety. These guys are getting illegal parkers to move on quickly. That can only be a good thing. Does the spy car move an illegally parked car? No - why bother moving it when you can fine it and leave it there.[/p][/quote]What the parking enforcement car does is ensure a fine is issued and the illegal parker thinks twice before parking illegally again. Tipping them off does not achieve that.[/p][/quote]Do you think that a 25 or even 50 pound fine is going to deter someone who can afford to buy and run £50,000 worth of Range Rover? Absolute rubbish. Most of them will just pass it on as expenses anyway. . What you have just proved with your last is that the spy car is about revenue not road safety. .[/p][/quote]The parking enforcement vehicles only fine those who are illegally parked. That's all good in my book. Very few illegally parked cars I see are high-end w@nkpanzers as you suggest. They are ordinary saloons. You raise a good point though. I would fully support illegal parking becoming an endorsable offence. Start slapping points on peoples' licences for it. That would be a stronger deterrent.[/p][/quote]I would agree with that. . So long as the meaningless fine is dropped to remove the financial motivation and we can all see that it is about road safety.[/p][/quote]No. Endorsement AND fine, like most other traffic violations. What are you not getting? The only people being fined are those who break the law. There is nothing wrong with that. It is easily avoidable by parking legally. Or are you saying we should be soft on lawbreakers?[/p][/quote]Points on licence is not soft on lawbreakers and it is the only way that wil change behaviour. The fine as it stands is pointless. It says to people, Park illegally if you can afford it, and then leave the car there all day as you are not going to get fined again. Thats not good for road safety (which is the reason for law), so what is the point in maintaining the fine if your going to give points and then remove the car from the road? . If the council are really that strapped for cash they sould look at all the cyclists who break every rule in the book. Alekhine
  • Score: 6

3:16pm Mon 18 Jun 12

meldrew84 says...

emcee wrote:
Joe Hune wrote:
meldrew84 wrote:
And perhaps Mr Wells should look into premises with parking facilities instead of encouraging illegal parking just to profit himself!
Just shows what a great business man Mr Wells is to pick a premises without parking!

The lights are on, but obviously nobody was home when he thought opening a shop in this location without any parking was good!

So because I haven't got anything else to do Mr Wells thinks he will invite a load of sad old bikers to Southend to do his dirty work for him!

Get a life Mr Wells!!
Maybe Mr Wells had the premises long before the parking restrictions were as they are.
The parking along Woodgrange is hardly restricted anyway! There's multiple spaces along the stretch of road where his shop is and usually i only see the wardens ensuring people don't out stay their welcome in the parking spots, so they are effectively trying to help him by ensuring the spots are regularly free for multiple customers to come and go as opposed to one or two selfish drivers hogging the spot all day! Not to mention there is parking on the side streets.

What this buffoon has failed to recognise is the cars and wardens are doing his business a favour by making sure people don't take the spot for themselves all day! Or does he not realise people from the train station will be keen to hog the spots all day, before his custom even attempts an arrival if allowed to do so!

I have a suspicion the man has not much else to do apart from make a feeble attempt at getting his business advertised for free in the local paper in an attempt at luring fellow supporters to his shop. Just a thought......
[quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Hune[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]meldrew84[/bold] wrote: And perhaps Mr Wells should look into premises with parking facilities instead of encouraging illegal parking just to profit himself![/p][/quote]Just shows what a great business man Mr Wells is to pick a premises without parking! The lights are on, but obviously nobody was home when he thought opening a shop in this location without any parking was good! So because I haven't got anything else to do Mr Wells thinks he will invite a load of sad old bikers to Southend to do his dirty work for him! Get a life Mr Wells!![/p][/quote]Maybe Mr Wells had the premises long before the parking restrictions were as they are.[/p][/quote]The parking along Woodgrange is hardly restricted anyway! There's multiple spaces along the stretch of road where his shop is and usually i only see the wardens ensuring people don't out stay their welcome in the parking spots, so they are effectively trying to help him by ensuring the spots are regularly free for multiple customers to come and go as opposed to one or two selfish drivers hogging the spot all day! Not to mention there is parking on the side streets. What this buffoon has failed to recognise is the cars and wardens are doing his business a favour by making sure people don't take the spot for themselves all day! Or does he not realise people from the train station will be keen to hog the spots all day, before his custom even attempts an arrival if allowed to do so! I have a suspicion the man has not much else to do apart from make a feeble attempt at getting his business advertised for free in the local paper in an attempt at luring fellow supporters to his shop. Just a thought...... meldrew84
  • Score: -2

3:37pm Mon 18 Jun 12

r6keith says...

Alekhine said "The bike L-Plate does not mean the bikers experience can be measured in hours. A bike can be run on an L-Plate for years.
My local pizza delivery bike is an L-Plate but the rider is no learner (again its a shared bike).
Its illegal to ride a bike displaying L plates if you are a full licence holder , if you have not passed a test regardless of time riding you are by discription a learner.
Alekhine said "The bike L-Plate does not mean the bikers experience can be measured in hours. A bike can be run on an L-Plate for years. My local pizza delivery bike is an L-Plate but the rider is no learner (again its a shared bike). Its illegal to ride a bike displaying L plates if you are a full licence holder , if you have not passed a test regardless of time riding you are by discription a learner. r6keith
  • Score: 2

3:39pm Mon 18 Jun 12

Max Impact says...

Joe Hune wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.
Totally agree! If I was driving and I constantly had 3 or 4 bikers on my tail it could cause a lack of concentration and an accident to happen! I can't believe an Independant Councillor is backing this behaviour. So sad how some people will do anything to get at the Conservatives!
I agree with you Lefty... Now thats a story for the Echo!

Park illegally get a ticket simple as that.

Surely if this guy is driving round follwing the CCTV Car then it could be a form of stalking, also is he wearing the mask whne riding the motorbike, is that legal? and why bother with the mask when you have "outed" yourself in the Echo!

I bet these guys will moan about the cost of petrol it is costing them, I know where I will NOT be buying my ink from in future.
[quote][p][bold]Joe Hune[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.[/p][/quote]Totally agree! If I was driving and I constantly had 3 or 4 bikers on my tail it could cause a lack of concentration and an accident to happen! I can't believe an Independant Councillor is backing this behaviour. So sad how some people will do anything to get at the Conservatives![/p][/quote]I agree with you Lefty... Now thats a story for the Echo! Park illegally get a ticket simple as that. Surely if this guy is driving round follwing the CCTV Car then it could be a form of stalking, also is he wearing the mask whne riding the motorbike, is that legal? and why bother with the mask when you have "outed" yourself in the Echo! I bet these guys will moan about the cost of petrol it is costing them, I know where I will NOT be buying my ink from in future. Max Impact
  • Score: 1

3:54pm Mon 18 Jun 12

Alekhine says...

r6keith wrote:
Alekhine said "The bike L-Plate does not mean the bikers experience can be measured in hours. A bike can be run on an L-Plate for years. My local pizza delivery bike is an L-Plate but the rider is no learner (again its a shared bike). Its illegal to ride a bike displaying L plates if you are a full licence holder , if you have not passed a test regardless of time riding you are by discription a learner.
I do not know what licence the rider holds. You know as well as i do that after passing a CBT you can ride a 125 on an L-Plate and there is no time deadline from that point to passing your test. Some people do ride on an L-plate for years. I would say they are much more experienced that the person who takes a 2 week course, passes direct access and then buys an R1.
[quote][p][bold]r6keith[/bold] wrote: Alekhine said "The bike L-Plate does not mean the bikers experience can be measured in hours. A bike can be run on an L-Plate for years. My local pizza delivery bike is an L-Plate but the rider is no learner (again its a shared bike). Its illegal to ride a bike displaying L plates if you are a full licence holder , if you have not passed a test regardless of time riding you are by discription a learner.[/p][/quote]I do not know what licence the rider holds. You know as well as i do that after passing a CBT you can ride a 125 on an L-Plate and there is no time deadline from that point to passing your test. Some people do ride on an L-plate for years. I would say they are much more experienced that the person who takes a 2 week course, passes direct access and then buys an R1. Alekhine
  • Score: 2

4:01pm Mon 18 Jun 12

The Cater Wood Creeper says...

They are though! They’ve been used by protestors (Occupy movement)/vigilante groups and the worldwide hacking group anonymous for years! I associate them with anonymous mostly


bit difficult to remain 'anonymous' when you're riding a motorbike which presumably has a registration plate clearly visible.....
[quote]They are though! They’ve been used by protestors (Occupy movement)/vigilante groups and the worldwide hacking group anonymous for years! I associate them with anonymous mostly[/quote] bit difficult to remain 'anonymous' when you're riding a motorbike which presumably has a registration plate clearly visible..... The Cater Wood Creeper
  • Score: 4

4:18pm Mon 18 Jun 12

R85 says...

The Cater Wood Creeper wrote:
They are though! They’ve been used by protestors (Occupy movement)/vigilante groups and the worldwide hacking group anonymous for years! I associate them with anonymous mostly
bit difficult to remain 'anonymous' when you're riding a motorbike which presumably has a registration plate clearly visible.....
Yeah - You’d still be anonymous to civilians who don’t have access to the DVLA database though and these guys aren’t committing any crimes! Anonymous were partly responsible for arranging Occupy Wall Street which was all over the global news – Some of their identities must have gotten out you would think!??

I guess on the whole anonymous indeed isn’t so anonymous anymore, since Hector Xavier aka Sabu was busted by the FBI last year in New York. Guy spent the next 6 months working for the feds and helping them take down as many anonymous hackers as possible! If the media is to be believed he was the head honcho in that group!

Anyway yeah I doubt very much they are from anonymous, possibly though!?
[quote][p][bold]The Cater Wood Creeper[/bold] wrote: [quote]They are though! They’ve been used by protestors (Occupy movement)/vigilante groups and the worldwide hacking group anonymous for years! I associate them with anonymous mostly[/quote] bit difficult to remain 'anonymous' when you're riding a motorbike which presumably has a registration plate clearly visible.....[/p][/quote]Yeah - You’d still be anonymous to civilians who don’t have access to the DVLA database though and these guys aren’t committing any crimes! Anonymous were partly responsible for arranging Occupy Wall Street which was all over the global news – Some of their identities must have gotten out you would think!?? I guess on the whole anonymous indeed isn’t so anonymous anymore, since Hector Xavier aka Sabu was busted by the FBI last year in New York. Guy spent the next 6 months working for the feds and helping them take down as many anonymous hackers as possible! If the media is to be believed he was the head honcho in that group! Anyway yeah I doubt very much they are from anonymous, possibly though!? R85
  • Score: 2

4:30pm Mon 18 Jun 12

Lefty Cyclist Type says...

Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.
No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?
People don't learn not to park illegally by being 'tipped off'. It's the same mentality as warning drivers of police speed checks, all it does is enable the speeders to continue their dangerous driving. All this will do is enable illegal parkers to continue parking illegally, just elsewhere. I wonder if anyone here would be applauding these vigilantes if they were tipping off muggers to the presence of the police?
Muggers?-Hardly the same thing but then why let reason get in the way of your opinion. . Parking rules are meant to be first and foremost about road / pavement safety. These guys are getting illegal parkers to move on quickly. That can only be a good thing. Does the spy car move an illegally parked car? No - why bother moving it when you can fine it and leave it there.
What the parking enforcement car does is ensure a fine is issued and the illegal parker thinks twice before parking illegally again. Tipping them off does not achieve that.
Do you think that a 25 or even 50 pound fine is going to deter someone who can afford to buy and run £50,000 worth of Range Rover? Absolute rubbish. Most of them will just pass it on as expenses anyway. . What you have just proved with your last is that the spy car is about revenue not road safety. .
The parking enforcement vehicles only fine those who are illegally parked. That's all good in my book. Very few illegally parked cars I see are high-end w@nkpanzers as you suggest. They are ordinary saloons. You raise a good point though. I would fully support illegal parking becoming an endorsable offence. Start slapping points on peoples' licences for it. That would be a stronger deterrent.
I would agree with that. . So long as the meaningless fine is dropped to remove the financial motivation and we can all see that it is about road safety.
No. Endorsement AND fine, like most other traffic violations. What are you not getting? The only people being fined are those who break the law. There is nothing wrong with that. It is easily avoidable by parking legally. Or are you saying we should be soft on lawbreakers?
Points on licence is not soft on lawbreakers and it is the only way that wil change behaviour. The fine as it stands is pointless. It says to people, Park illegally if you can afford it, and then leave the car there all day as you are not going to get fined again. Thats not good for road safety (which is the reason for law), so what is the point in maintaining the fine if your going to give points and then remove the car from the road?
.
If the council are really that strapped for cash they sould look at all the cyclists who break every rule in the book.
Gosh, it took you five whole posts to come up with that tired old cliche.
Rule #1 of the Alekhine rules of discussion: If you can't defend the indefensible try to deflect the argument onto another group.
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.[/p][/quote]No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?[/p][/quote]People don't learn not to park illegally by being 'tipped off'. It's the same mentality as warning drivers of police speed checks, all it does is enable the speeders to continue their dangerous driving. All this will do is enable illegal parkers to continue parking illegally, just elsewhere. I wonder if anyone here would be applauding these vigilantes if they were tipping off muggers to the presence of the police?[/p][/quote]Muggers?-Hardly the same thing but then why let reason get in the way of your opinion. . Parking rules are meant to be first and foremost about road / pavement safety. These guys are getting illegal parkers to move on quickly. That can only be a good thing. Does the spy car move an illegally parked car? No - why bother moving it when you can fine it and leave it there.[/p][/quote]What the parking enforcement car does is ensure a fine is issued and the illegal parker thinks twice before parking illegally again. Tipping them off does not achieve that.[/p][/quote]Do you think that a 25 or even 50 pound fine is going to deter someone who can afford to buy and run £50,000 worth of Range Rover? Absolute rubbish. Most of them will just pass it on as expenses anyway. . What you have just proved with your last is that the spy car is about revenue not road safety. .[/p][/quote]The parking enforcement vehicles only fine those who are illegally parked. That's all good in my book. Very few illegally parked cars I see are high-end w@nkpanzers as you suggest. They are ordinary saloons. You raise a good point though. I would fully support illegal parking becoming an endorsable offence. Start slapping points on peoples' licences for it. That would be a stronger deterrent.[/p][/quote]I would agree with that. . So long as the meaningless fine is dropped to remove the financial motivation and we can all see that it is about road safety.[/p][/quote]No. Endorsement AND fine, like most other traffic violations. What are you not getting? The only people being fined are those who break the law. There is nothing wrong with that. It is easily avoidable by parking legally. Or are you saying we should be soft on lawbreakers?[/p][/quote]Points on licence is not soft on lawbreakers and it is the only way that wil change behaviour. The fine as it stands is pointless. It says to people, Park illegally if you can afford it, and then leave the car there all day as you are not going to get fined again. Thats not good for road safety (which is the reason for law), so what is the point in maintaining the fine if your going to give points and then remove the car from the road? . If the council are really that strapped for cash they sould look at all the cyclists who break every rule in the book.[/p][/quote]Gosh, it took you five whole posts to come up with that tired old cliche. Rule #1 of the Alekhine rules of discussion: If you can't defend the indefensible try to deflect the argument onto another group. Lefty Cyclist Type
  • Score: -3

4:34pm Mon 18 Jun 12

alberteinstine says...

If there are no kerb blips, you can load and unload on a single or double yellow line for a maximum period of 40 minutes at any time.

If you are loading and unloading within a Controlled Parking Zone remember that the single yellow line restrictions carry the hours of
control for that particular zone. Within a Controlled Parking Zone, if necessary, you can load and unload without charge on a Meter,
Pay and Display, Shared-Use, Residents or Permit Parking Bay but you are restricted to a maximum period of 20 minutes within the
hours of control. There are no time limits on Meter, Pay and Display, Shared-Use or Permit Parking Bays outside the hours of control.
If you are parked in a Meter, Pay and Display or Shared Use bay during the hours of control you must after 20 minutes either move your
vehicle or pay the appropriate charge for that parking place.
If you are parked in a Residents or Permit Parking Bay during the hours of control then you must after 20 minutes, move your vehicle
or relocate it to either a Meter, Pay and Display or Shared Use bay and pay the appropriate charge.
Loading and unloading should be a continuous operation. It should be obvious to a Civil Enforcement Officer
(formerly known as parking attendants) that the vehicle is engaged in legitimate loading and unloading and that the goods are either
too big or too heavy to be carried for any distance. If you are using a car and not a vehicle specifically constructed to carry goods,
then the loading must be necessary and not convenient and the goods must be too large to carry.
If there are no kerb blips, you can load and unload on a single or double yellow line for a maximum period of 40 minutes at any time. If you are loading and unloading within a Controlled Parking Zone remember that the single yellow line restrictions carry the hours of control for that particular zone. Within a Controlled Parking Zone, if necessary, you can load and unload without charge on a Meter, Pay and Display, Shared-Use, Residents or Permit Parking Bay but you are restricted to a maximum period of 20 minutes within the hours of control. There are no time limits on Meter, Pay and Display, Shared-Use or Permit Parking Bays outside the hours of control. If you are parked in a Meter, Pay and Display or Shared Use bay during the hours of control you must after 20 minutes either move your vehicle or pay the appropriate charge for that parking place. If you are parked in a Residents or Permit Parking Bay during the hours of control then you must after 20 minutes, move your vehicle or relocate it to either a Meter, Pay and Display or Shared Use bay and pay the appropriate charge. Loading and unloading should be a continuous operation. It should be obvious to a Civil Enforcement Officer (formerly known as parking attendants) that the vehicle is engaged in legitimate loading and unloading and that the goods are either too big or too heavy to be carried for any distance. If you are using a car and not a vehicle specifically constructed to carry goods, then the loading must be necessary and not convenient and the goods must be too large to carry. alberteinstine
  • Score: 1

4:50pm Mon 18 Jun 12

muffindamule says...

I reckon there's a little bit of anti authoritarianism in most of us. This bit certainly appeals to me. Jolly well done !
I reckon there's a little bit of anti authoritarianism in most of us. This bit certainly appeals to me. Jolly well done ! muffindamule
  • Score: 2

5:10pm Mon 18 Jun 12

Joe Hune says...

meldrew84 wrote:
emcee wrote:
Joe Hune wrote:
meldrew84 wrote: And perhaps Mr Wells should look into premises with parking facilities instead of encouraging illegal parking just to profit himself!
Just shows what a great business man Mr Wells is to pick a premises without parking! The lights are on, but obviously nobody was home when he thought opening a shop in this location without any parking was good! So because I haven't got anything else to do Mr Wells thinks he will invite a load of sad old bikers to Southend to do his dirty work for him! Get a life Mr Wells!!
Maybe Mr Wells had the premises long before the parking restrictions were as they are.
The parking along Woodgrange is hardly restricted anyway! There's multiple spaces along the stretch of road where his shop is and usually i only see the wardens ensuring people don't out stay their welcome in the parking spots, so they are effectively trying to help him by ensuring the spots are regularly free for multiple customers to come and go as opposed to one or two selfish drivers hogging the spot all day! Not to mention there is parking on the side streets. What this buffoon has failed to recognise is the cars and wardens are doing his business a favour by making sure people don't take the spot for themselves all day! Or does he not realise people from the train station will be keen to hog the spots all day, before his custom even attempts an arrival if allowed to do so! I have a suspicion the man has not much else to do apart from make a feeble attempt at getting his business advertised for free in the local paper in an attempt at luring fellow supporters to his shop. Just a thought......
So true!

This idiot just wants his name in the paper as he knows the ECHO struggle for proper news and will print anything!

When Mr Peter Watkins and Mr Bob Wells had their mug shots in the ECHO, you could tell they hadn't got an once of brains between them!

The more the spaces are kept clear, the more customers will pop in a give you business, so well done the Wardens!

But if these two Buffoons encourage their lazy customers to park in the Bus Stop on Woodgrange Drive, that is different.
[quote][p][bold]meldrew84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Hune[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]meldrew84[/bold] wrote: And perhaps Mr Wells should look into premises with parking facilities instead of encouraging illegal parking just to profit himself![/p][/quote]Just shows what a great business man Mr Wells is to pick a premises without parking! The lights are on, but obviously nobody was home when he thought opening a shop in this location without any parking was good! So because I haven't got anything else to do Mr Wells thinks he will invite a load of sad old bikers to Southend to do his dirty work for him! Get a life Mr Wells!![/p][/quote]Maybe Mr Wells had the premises long before the parking restrictions were as they are.[/p][/quote]The parking along Woodgrange is hardly restricted anyway! There's multiple spaces along the stretch of road where his shop is and usually i only see the wardens ensuring people don't out stay their welcome in the parking spots, so they are effectively trying to help him by ensuring the spots are regularly free for multiple customers to come and go as opposed to one or two selfish drivers hogging the spot all day! Not to mention there is parking on the side streets. What this buffoon has failed to recognise is the cars and wardens are doing his business a favour by making sure people don't take the spot for themselves all day! Or does he not realise people from the train station will be keen to hog the spots all day, before his custom even attempts an arrival if allowed to do so! I have a suspicion the man has not much else to do apart from make a feeble attempt at getting his business advertised for free in the local paper in an attempt at luring fellow supporters to his shop. Just a thought......[/p][/quote]So true! This idiot just wants his name in the paper as he knows the ECHO struggle for proper news and will print anything! When Mr Peter Watkins and Mr Bob Wells had their mug shots in the ECHO, you could tell they hadn't got an once of brains between them! The more the spaces are kept clear, the more customers will pop in a give you business, so well done the Wardens! But if these two Buffoons encourage their lazy customers to park in the Bus Stop on Woodgrange Drive, that is different. Joe Hune
  • Score: 0

5:44pm Mon 18 Jun 12

lost_scotsman says...

There have been a few stories about this car and the people opposed to it because apparently it gives out fines to illegaly parked vehicles when a traffic warden on foot could do the same. But I really don't see the point or the difference it makes. If the traffic enforcement are on foot or in a vehicle does it matter? Please could some one make clear to me the difference between getting a fine from a enforcement car or foot warden???

In the times when we are in facing cuts in council funds etc etc. Surely it makes much more sense for our council to pay for a few cars to cover a larger area than pay for lots and lots of foot wardens to each cover small areas. People seem to be miffed because they are being caught parking illegally? surely if you take the risk then you have to accept if you are caught. I see no argument, if there are parking restrictions then they need to be enforced, doesnt matter by what means it is enforced does it?

I live in Eastwood North road. you may know the Co-op where there is some parking then a bus stop (for buses) the camera car comes 3 maybe 4 times a day because for some reason drivers feel it is ok to park in the bus stop, stopping buses from safely stopping at the kurb side. I say well done camera car, if people have so little consideration when they park then they deserve a fine.
There have been a few stories about this car and the people opposed to it because apparently it gives out fines to illegaly parked vehicles when a traffic warden on foot could do the same. But I really don't see the point or the difference it makes. If the traffic enforcement are on foot or in a vehicle does it matter? Please could some one make clear to me the difference between getting a fine from a enforcement car or foot warden??? In the times when we are in facing cuts in council funds etc etc. Surely it makes much more sense for our council to pay for a few cars to cover a larger area than pay for lots and lots of foot wardens to each cover small areas. People seem to be miffed because they are being caught parking illegally? surely if you take the risk then you have to accept if you are caught. I see no argument, if there are parking restrictions then they need to be enforced, doesnt matter by what means it is enforced does it? I live in Eastwood North road. you may know the Co-op where there is some parking then a bus stop (for buses) the camera car comes 3 maybe 4 times a day because for some reason drivers feel it is ok to park in the bus stop, stopping buses from safely stopping at the kurb side. I say well done camera car, if people have so little consideration when they park then they deserve a fine. lost_scotsman
  • Score: -1

5:49pm Mon 18 Jun 12

Alekhine says...

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.
No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?
People don't learn not to park illegally by being 'tipped off'. It's the same mentality as warning drivers of police speed checks, all it does is enable the speeders to continue their dangerous driving. All this will do is enable illegal parkers to continue parking illegally, just elsewhere. I wonder if anyone here would be applauding these vigilantes if they were tipping off muggers to the presence of the police?
Muggers?-Hardly the same thing but then why let reason get in the way of your opinion. . Parking rules are meant to be first and foremost about road / pavement safety. These guys are getting illegal parkers to move on quickly. That can only be a good thing. Does the spy car move an illegally parked car? No - why bother moving it when you can fine it and leave it there.
What the parking enforcement car does is ensure a fine is issued and the illegal parker thinks twice before parking illegally again. Tipping them off does not achieve that.
Do you think that a 25 or even 50 pound fine is going to deter someone who can afford to buy and run £50,000 worth of Range Rover? Absolute rubbish. Most of them will just pass it on as expenses anyway. . What you have just proved with your last is that the spy car is about revenue not road safety. .
The parking enforcement vehicles only fine those who are illegally parked. That's all good in my book. Very few illegally parked cars I see are high-end w@nkpanzers as you suggest. They are ordinary saloons. You raise a good point though. I would fully support illegal parking becoming an endorsable offence. Start slapping points on peoples' licences for it. That would be a stronger deterrent.
I would agree with that. . So long as the meaningless fine is dropped to remove the financial motivation and we can all see that it is about road safety.
No. Endorsement AND fine, like most other traffic violations. What are you not getting? The only people being fined are those who break the law. There is nothing wrong with that. It is easily avoidable by parking legally. Or are you saying we should be soft on lawbreakers?
Points on licence is not soft on lawbreakers and it is the only way that wil change behaviour. The fine as it stands is pointless. It says to people, Park illegally if you can afford it, and then leave the car there all day as you are not going to get fined again. Thats not good for road safety (which is the reason for law), so what is the point in maintaining the fine if your going to give points and then remove the car from the road? . If the council are really that strapped for cash they sould look at all the cyclists who break every rule in the book.
Gosh, it took you five whole posts to come up with that tired old cliche. Rule #1 of the Alekhine rules of discussion: If you can't defend the indefensible try to deflect the argument onto another group.
Are you feeling well Lefty, only your post is only 4 lines long. Was it some i said?
.
[quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.[/p][/quote]No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?[/p][/quote]People don't learn not to park illegally by being 'tipped off'. It's the same mentality as warning drivers of police speed checks, all it does is enable the speeders to continue their dangerous driving. All this will do is enable illegal parkers to continue parking illegally, just elsewhere. I wonder if anyone here would be applauding these vigilantes if they were tipping off muggers to the presence of the police?[/p][/quote]Muggers?-Hardly the same thing but then why let reason get in the way of your opinion. . Parking rules are meant to be first and foremost about road / pavement safety. These guys are getting illegal parkers to move on quickly. That can only be a good thing. Does the spy car move an illegally parked car? No - why bother moving it when you can fine it and leave it there.[/p][/quote]What the parking enforcement car does is ensure a fine is issued and the illegal parker thinks twice before parking illegally again. Tipping them off does not achieve that.[/p][/quote]Do you think that a 25 or even 50 pound fine is going to deter someone who can afford to buy and run £50,000 worth of Range Rover? Absolute rubbish. Most of them will just pass it on as expenses anyway. . What you have just proved with your last is that the spy car is about revenue not road safety. .[/p][/quote]The parking enforcement vehicles only fine those who are illegally parked. That's all good in my book. Very few illegally parked cars I see are high-end w@nkpanzers as you suggest. They are ordinary saloons. You raise a good point though. I would fully support illegal parking becoming an endorsable offence. Start slapping points on peoples' licences for it. That would be a stronger deterrent.[/p][/quote]I would agree with that. . So long as the meaningless fine is dropped to remove the financial motivation and we can all see that it is about road safety.[/p][/quote]No. Endorsement AND fine, like most other traffic violations. What are you not getting? The only people being fined are those who break the law. There is nothing wrong with that. It is easily avoidable by parking legally. Or are you saying we should be soft on lawbreakers?[/p][/quote]Points on licence is not soft on lawbreakers and it is the only way that wil change behaviour. The fine as it stands is pointless. It says to people, Park illegally if you can afford it, and then leave the car there all day as you are not going to get fined again. Thats not good for road safety (which is the reason for law), so what is the point in maintaining the fine if your going to give points and then remove the car from the road? . If the council are really that strapped for cash they sould look at all the cyclists who break every rule in the book.[/p][/quote]Gosh, it took you five whole posts to come up with that tired old cliche. Rule #1 of the Alekhine rules of discussion: If you can't defend the indefensible try to deflect the argument onto another group.[/p][/quote]Are you feeling well Lefty, only your post is only 4 lines long. Was it some i said? . Alekhine
  • Score: 2

5:59pm Mon 18 Jun 12

Joe Hune says...

lost_scotsman wrote:
There have been a few stories about this car and the people opposed to it because apparently it gives out fines to illegaly parked vehicles when a traffic warden on foot could do the same. But I really don't see the point or the difference it makes. If the traffic enforcement are on foot or in a vehicle does it matter? Please could some one make clear to me the difference between getting a fine from a enforcement car or foot warden??? In the times when we are in facing cuts in council funds etc etc. Surely it makes much more sense for our council to pay for a few cars to cover a larger area than pay for lots and lots of foot wardens to each cover small areas. People seem to be miffed because they are being caught parking illegally? surely if you take the risk then you have to accept if you are caught. I see no argument, if there are parking restrictions then they need to be enforced, doesnt matter by what means it is enforced does it? I live in Eastwood North road. you may know the Co-op where there is some parking then a bus stop (for buses) the camera car comes 3 maybe 4 times a day because for some reason drivers feel it is ok to park in the bus stop, stopping buses from safely stopping at the kurb side. I say well done camera car, if people have so little consideration when they park then they deserve a fine.
These people like it as Wardens can be intimidated and the cars give the fines and people get them in the post!

You are correct on every point, just seems the tables have turned and the Traffic Wardens can get their tickets issued without getting all the crap they have to put up with!
[quote][p][bold]lost_scotsman[/bold] wrote: There have been a few stories about this car and the people opposed to it because apparently it gives out fines to illegaly parked vehicles when a traffic warden on foot could do the same. But I really don't see the point or the difference it makes. If the traffic enforcement are on foot or in a vehicle does it matter? Please could some one make clear to me the difference between getting a fine from a enforcement car or foot warden??? In the times when we are in facing cuts in council funds etc etc. Surely it makes much more sense for our council to pay for a few cars to cover a larger area than pay for lots and lots of foot wardens to each cover small areas. People seem to be miffed because they are being caught parking illegally? surely if you take the risk then you have to accept if you are caught. I see no argument, if there are parking restrictions then they need to be enforced, doesnt matter by what means it is enforced does it? I live in Eastwood North road. you may know the Co-op where there is some parking then a bus stop (for buses) the camera car comes 3 maybe 4 times a day because for some reason drivers feel it is ok to park in the bus stop, stopping buses from safely stopping at the kurb side. I say well done camera car, if people have so little consideration when they park then they deserve a fine.[/p][/quote]These people like it as Wardens can be intimidated and the cars give the fines and people get them in the post! You are correct on every point, just seems the tables have turned and the Traffic Wardens can get their tickets issued without getting all the crap they have to put up with! Joe Hune
  • Score: 0

7:01pm Mon 18 Jun 12

The Bald Eagle says...

I am one of these so called "sad" "muppets" who has taken to assisting with public safety and traffic flow in your town. As is admitted in the Echo's article by Andrew Lewis, director for enterprise, tourism and the environment at Southend Council , neither myself nor my colleagues are doing anything illegal.

It wasn't us who told him that, it would have been the police. That would be the same police who were called by APCOA when we started assisting the spy cars with their visibility last week.

I have a question for our detractors on here, most of whom I suspect are employed by the council's PR (spin) department.

My colleagues and I have answered David Cameron's call to join his "Big Society" and we are holding public servants to account for their actions.

So my question to our detractors is this. If we stay within the law and assist with public safety and traffic flow, why are you so keen for us to stop?
I am one of these so called "sad" "muppets" who has taken to assisting with public safety and traffic flow in your town. As is admitted in the Echo's article by Andrew Lewis, director for enterprise, tourism and the environment at Southend Council , neither myself nor my colleagues are doing anything illegal. It wasn't us who told him that, it would have been the police. That would be the same police who were called by APCOA when we started assisting the spy cars with their visibility last week. I have a question for our detractors on here, most of whom I suspect are employed by the council's PR (spin) department. My colleagues and I have answered David Cameron's call to join his "Big Society" and we are holding public servants to account for their actions. So my question to our detractors is this. If we stay within the law and assist with public safety and traffic flow, why are you so keen for us to stop? The Bald Eagle
  • Score: 3

7:08pm Mon 18 Jun 12

Lefty Cyclist Type says...

The Bald Eagle wrote:
I am one of these so called "sad" "muppets" who has taken to assisting with public safety and traffic flow in your town. As is admitted in the Echo's article by Andrew Lewis, director for enterprise, tourism and the environment at Southend Council , neither myself nor my colleagues are doing anything illegal.

It wasn't us who told him that, it would have been the police. That would be the same police who were called by APCOA when we started assisting the spy cars with their visibility last week.

I have a question for our detractors on here, most of whom I suspect are employed by the council's PR (spin) department.

My colleagues and I have answered David Cameron's call to join his "Big Society" and we are holding public servants to account for their actions.

So my question to our detractors is this. If we stay within the law and assist with public safety and traffic flow, why are you so keen for us to stop?
Because there is no place for vigilante thugs on Southend's streets.
We don't need a bunch of morons riding around our town deliberately intimidating people going about their lawful business.
[quote][p][bold]The Bald Eagle[/bold] wrote: I am one of these so called "sad" "muppets" who has taken to assisting with public safety and traffic flow in your town. As is admitted in the Echo's article by Andrew Lewis, director for enterprise, tourism and the environment at Southend Council , neither myself nor my colleagues are doing anything illegal. It wasn't us who told him that, it would have been the police. That would be the same police who were called by APCOA when we started assisting the spy cars with their visibility last week. I have a question for our detractors on here, most of whom I suspect are employed by the council's PR (spin) department. My colleagues and I have answered David Cameron's call to join his "Big Society" and we are holding public servants to account for their actions. So my question to our detractors is this. If we stay within the law and assist with public safety and traffic flow, why are you so keen for us to stop?[/p][/quote]Because there is no place for vigilante thugs on Southend's streets. We don't need a bunch of morons riding around our town deliberately intimidating people going about their lawful business. Lefty Cyclist Type
  • Score: -5

7:24pm Mon 18 Jun 12

Max Impact says...

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
The Bald Eagle wrote: I am one of these so called "sad" "muppets" who has taken to assisting with public safety and traffic flow in your town. As is admitted in the Echo's article by Andrew Lewis, director for enterprise, tourism and the environment at Southend Council , neither myself nor my colleagues are doing anything illegal. It wasn't us who told him that, it would have been the police. That would be the same police who were called by APCOA when we started assisting the spy cars with their visibility last week. I have a question for our detractors on here, most of whom I suspect are employed by the council's PR (spin) department. My colleagues and I have answered David Cameron's call to join his "Big Society" and we are holding public servants to account for their actions. So my question to our detractors is this. If we stay within the law and assist with public safety and traffic flow, why are you so keen for us to stop?
Because there is no place for vigilante thugs on Southend's streets. We don't need a bunch of morons riding around our town deliberately intimidating people going about their lawful business.
Well said lefty.

Wonder if these "vigilantes" would be happy if somebody was to follow them round all day watching their every move, bet they would be the first to moan about it.

As for using the masks probably improves their looks, if there is a female driver of the CCTV car would they still use the mask? how would they like somebody to follow their wife/partner whist wearing a face mask, would they find it intimidating or would be be OK for us to do.
[quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Bald Eagle[/bold] wrote: I am one of these so called "sad" "muppets" who has taken to assisting with public safety and traffic flow in your town. As is admitted in the Echo's article by Andrew Lewis, director for enterprise, tourism and the environment at Southend Council , neither myself nor my colleagues are doing anything illegal. It wasn't us who told him that, it would have been the police. That would be the same police who were called by APCOA when we started assisting the spy cars with their visibility last week. I have a question for our detractors on here, most of whom I suspect are employed by the council's PR (spin) department. My colleagues and I have answered David Cameron's call to join his "Big Society" and we are holding public servants to account for their actions. So my question to our detractors is this. If we stay within the law and assist with public safety and traffic flow, why are you so keen for us to stop?[/p][/quote]Because there is no place for vigilante thugs on Southend's streets. We don't need a bunch of morons riding around our town deliberately intimidating people going about their lawful business.[/p][/quote]Well said lefty. Wonder if these "vigilantes" would be happy if somebody was to follow them round all day watching their every move, bet they would be the first to moan about it. As for using the masks probably improves their looks, if there is a female driver of the CCTV car would they still use the mask? how would they like somebody to follow their wife/partner whist wearing a face mask, would they find it intimidating or would be be OK for us to do. Max Impact
  • Score: -4

7:49pm Mon 18 Jun 12

mr_happy says...

Just returned from Wales. 60p per hour to park your car, not the rip-off fees like here. It makes you want to drive into town for a bit of shopping, rather that getting stressed and ripped-off about parking.

I was there when the photos were being taken. they are not intimidating. Good luck to them. They may get the message across to both sides, those who abuse safety and those who abuse the use of the camera cars.
Just returned from Wales. 60p per hour to park your car, not the rip-off fees like here. It makes you want to drive into town for a bit of shopping, rather that getting stressed and ripped-off about parking. I was there when the photos were being taken. they are not intimidating. Good luck to them. They may get the message across to both sides, those who abuse safety and those who abuse the use of the camera cars. mr_happy
  • Score: 2

7:54pm Mon 18 Jun 12

The Bald Eagle says...

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
The Bald Eagle wrote:
I am one of these so called "sad" "muppets" who has taken to assisting with public safety and traffic flow in your town. As is admitted in the Echo's article by Andrew Lewis, director for enterprise, tourism and the environment at Southend Council , neither myself nor my colleagues are doing anything illegal.

It wasn't us who told him that, it would have been the police. That would be the same police who were called by APCOA when we started assisting the spy cars with their visibility last week.

I have a question for our detractors on here, most of whom I suspect are employed by the council's PR (spin) department.

My colleagues and I have answered David Cameron's call to join his "Big Society" and we are holding public servants to account for their actions.

So my question to our detractors is this. If we stay within the law and assist with public safety and traffic flow, why are you so keen for us to stop?
Because there is no place for vigilante thugs on Southend's streets.
We don't need a bunch of morons riding around our town deliberately intimidating people going about their lawful business.
So I am now a vigilante thug?

If I was such a thug, don't you think the police would have had something to say about it?

What part of “Unfortunately, there was nothing we could do to prevent them from taking this action as they weren’t breaking the law.” is it that you don't understand?
[quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Bald Eagle[/bold] wrote: I am one of these so called "sad" "muppets" who has taken to assisting with public safety and traffic flow in your town. As is admitted in the Echo's article by Andrew Lewis, director for enterprise, tourism and the environment at Southend Council , neither myself nor my colleagues are doing anything illegal. It wasn't us who told him that, it would have been the police. That would be the same police who were called by APCOA when we started assisting the spy cars with their visibility last week. I have a question for our detractors on here, most of whom I suspect are employed by the council's PR (spin) department. My colleagues and I have answered David Cameron's call to join his "Big Society" and we are holding public servants to account for their actions. So my question to our detractors is this. If we stay within the law and assist with public safety and traffic flow, why are you so keen for us to stop?[/p][/quote]Because there is no place for vigilante thugs on Southend's streets. We don't need a bunch of morons riding around our town deliberately intimidating people going about their lawful business.[/p][/quote]So I am now a vigilante thug? If I was such a thug, don't you think the police would have had something to say about it? What part of “Unfortunately, there was nothing we could do to prevent them from taking this action as they weren’t breaking the law.” is it that you don't understand? The Bald Eagle
  • Score: 2

8:45pm Mon 18 Jun 12

The Bald Eagle says...

@Lefty Cyclist

Oh dear! Do you really think you are doing your cause any good by resorting to personal abuse?

Keep it coming LC. Your ban from this site will surely follow. :-)
@Lefty Cyclist Oh dear! Do you really think you are doing your cause any good by resorting to personal abuse? Keep it coming LC. Your ban from this site will surely follow. :-) The Bald Eagle
  • Score: 1

8:52pm Mon 18 Jun 12

asbo foundation says...

he also answers to the chippy communist
he also answers to the chippy communist asbo foundation
  • Score: 0

9:03pm Mon 18 Jun 12

V 4 Vengance says...

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.
I think you will find these Scam cam cars have all ready knocked over one small child. I also think you will find that some of the staff who drive these cars are extremely rude to the public making obscene gestures and swearing at them. I am all for this type of public assistance. Surely the object of the exercise is to improve road safety. Covert issuing of PCN's is all about raising revenue and nothing to do with safety. If parking control is about road safety or traffic flow, how does allowing the offence to be committed whilst filming it improve the situation? The answer is that it does not help at all. A more visible and effective deterrent is a Parking Warden or CEO as they are called these days. So let's stop trying to pull the wool over any ones eyes IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!
[quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.[/p][/quote]I think you will find these Scam cam cars have all ready knocked over one small child. I also think you will find that some of the staff who drive these cars are extremely rude to the public making obscene gestures and swearing at them. I am all for this type of public assistance. Surely the object of the exercise is to improve road safety. Covert issuing of PCN's is all about raising revenue and nothing to do with safety. If parking control is about road safety or traffic flow, how does allowing the offence to be committed whilst filming it improve the situation? The answer is that it does not help at all. A more visible and effective deterrent is a Parking Warden or CEO as they are called these days. So let's stop trying to pull the wool over any ones eyes IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY! V 4 Vengance
  • Score: 3

9:57pm Mon 18 Jun 12

lost_scotsman says...

But is this not simply a case of people being miffed because the likely hood of being caught parking ILLEGALY is higher due to the car being able to cover a wider area. Would the vigilante group be more happy if the council scrapped the car, but hired 1000 foot wardens. (1 for say every 10 streets in the southend borough). Then when you still get a ticket for parking illegaly would you be happy?
But is this not simply a case of people being miffed because the likely hood of being caught parking ILLEGALY is higher due to the car being able to cover a wider area. Would the vigilante group be more happy if the council scrapped the car, but hired 1000 foot wardens. (1 for say every 10 streets in the southend borough). Then when you still get a ticket for parking illegaly would you be happy? lost_scotsman
  • Score: 2

10:05pm Mon 18 Jun 12

lost_scotsman says...

plus you think this car is bad. Last year I was in New York. (i witnessed for myself) They dont hand around taking photos in a little white car. They cruise round in pick ups with a crane on the back and just tow your illegally parked car away, they dont leave a note or anything, i guess you have to ring the police or something!!! no messing about. Park illegaly then accept when you have been caught.
plus you think this car is bad. Last year I was in New York. (i witnessed for myself) They dont hand around taking photos in a little white car. They cruise round in pick ups with a crane on the back and just tow your illegally parked car away, they dont leave a note or anything, i guess you have to ring the police or something!!! no messing about. Park illegaly then accept when you have been caught. lost_scotsman
  • Score: -1

11:15pm Mon 18 Jun 12

Max Impact says...

lost_scotsman wrote:
plus you think this car is bad. Last year I was in New York. (i witnessed for myself) They dont hand around taking photos in a little white car. They cruise round in pick ups with a crane on the back and just tow your illegally parked car away, they dont leave a note or anything, i guess you have to ring the police or something!!! no messing about. Park illegaly then accept when you have been caught.
Thats the way to do it.
[quote][p][bold]lost_scotsman[/bold] wrote: plus you think this car is bad. Last year I was in New York. (i witnessed for myself) They dont hand around taking photos in a little white car. They cruise round in pick ups with a crane on the back and just tow your illegally parked car away, they dont leave a note or anything, i guess you have to ring the police or something!!! no messing about. Park illegaly then accept when you have been caught.[/p][/quote]Thats the way to do it. Max Impact
  • Score: 0

1:34am Tue 19 Jun 12

Barry_Shitpeas says...

Love it. I've been reading these boards longer than I can remember. And the conclusion I made was that: there are a few morons who post in between other things they are upto online, just to wind up a regular other posters. Any decent comments are generally lost. Am I questioning why I am posting? Yes!
Love it. I've been reading these boards longer than I can remember. And the conclusion I made was that: there are a few morons who post in between other things they are upto online, just to wind up a regular other posters. Any decent comments are generally lost. Am I questioning why I am posting? Yes! Barry_Shitpeas
  • Score: 1

1:56am Tue 19 Jun 12

The Bald Eagle says...

@ Max Impact and I quote:

"Well said lefty. ...Wonder if these "vigilantes" would be happy if somebody was to follow them round all day watching their every move.”

Please explain to our readers the difference between us watching them, and them doing exactly what you accuse us of?

I await your answer with bated breath.
@ Max Impact and I quote: "Well said lefty. ...Wonder if these "vigilantes" would be happy if somebody was to follow them round all day watching their every move.” Please explain to our readers the difference between us watching them, and them doing exactly what you accuse us of? I await your answer with bated breath. The Bald Eagle
  • Score: 0

2:56am Tue 19 Jun 12

Andycal 172D says...

The masks are from V for Vendetta you muppets! The story of one man's struggle against a corrupt right wing regime. (Sound familiar?)
The masks are from V for Vendetta you muppets! The story of one man's struggle against a corrupt right wing regime. (Sound familiar?) Andycal 172D
  • Score: 2

6:58am Tue 19 Jun 12

Lefty Cyclist Type says...

V 4 Vengance wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.
I think you will find these Scam cam cars have all ready knocked over one small child. I also think you will find that some of the staff who drive these cars are extremely rude to the public making obscene gestures and swearing at them. I am all for this type of public assistance. Surely the object of the exercise is to improve road safety. Covert issuing of PCN's is all about raising revenue and nothing to do with safety. If parking control is about road safety or traffic flow, how does allowing the offence to be committed whilst filming it improve the situation? The answer is that it does not help at all. A more visible and effective deterrent is a Parking Warden or CEO as they are called these days. So let's stop trying to pull the wool over any ones eyes IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!
They only take money from people who think they can flout the law by parking illegally. Park legally and you won't get fined. It's a no-brainier.

You're just whining because now it's a lot easier to catch illegal parking.

If you really support safety then report illegal parking to the council. But you don't support safety, you're supporting lawbreaking by aiding and abetting the lawbreakers.

You're no different than idiots who help keep dangerous drivers on the roads by warning oncoming speeders of police speed checkpoints.

You seem to think you're some kind of heroes, you're nothing of the sort. You're behaving like whiny school kids who've had their toys taken away.
[quote][p][bold]V 4 Vengance[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.[/p][/quote]I think you will find these Scam cam cars have all ready knocked over one small child. I also think you will find that some of the staff who drive these cars are extremely rude to the public making obscene gestures and swearing at them. I am all for this type of public assistance. Surely the object of the exercise is to improve road safety. Covert issuing of PCN's is all about raising revenue and nothing to do with safety. If parking control is about road safety or traffic flow, how does allowing the offence to be committed whilst filming it improve the situation? The answer is that it does not help at all. A more visible and effective deterrent is a Parking Warden or CEO as they are called these days. So let's stop trying to pull the wool over any ones eyes IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY![/p][/quote]They only take money from people who think they can flout the law by parking illegally. Park legally and you won't get fined. It's a no-brainier. You're just whining because now it's a lot easier to catch illegal parking. If you really support safety then report illegal parking to the council. But you don't support safety, you're supporting lawbreaking by aiding and abetting the lawbreakers. You're no different than idiots who help keep dangerous drivers on the roads by warning oncoming speeders of police speed checkpoints. You seem to think you're some kind of heroes, you're nothing of the sort. You're behaving like whiny school kids who've had their toys taken away. Lefty Cyclist Type
  • Score: -7

9:15am Tue 19 Jun 12

Nigel Wise says...

Lefty

These so called 'safety' cars were responsible for running down a child in Southend:

http://www.echo-news
.co.uk/news/9178252.
Young_boy_hit_by_CCT
V_car_on_Southend_se
afront/

Therefore it is YOU that 'supports lawbreaking.'

'Lawbreaking' is something that these vehicles do on a regular basis :

http://www.echo-news
.co.uk/news/local_ne
ws/southend/9659544.
Southend_man_s_landm
ark_spy_car_victory/


The issuing of tickets by the use of these vehicles in areas where CEO's can freely and easily patrol on foot is against the statutory guidance which Authorities must have regard to. Clearly in Southend there is no regard to this.

In Richmond upon Thames it was decided that the use of these vehicles was not necessary. They were removed from our roads:

http://cabnet.richmo
nd.gov.uk/documents/
s29394/Item%2012%20-
%20Fair%20Parking%20
Review.pdf

We have had a 'Fair Parking' enforcement policy here since that time. There have been no reported incidents of any traffic problems or saftey events since this was done over a year ago.

Businesses are now recovering. Lord True's policy of 'Fair Parking' and working with small businesses to encourage vibrant local shopping streets has now started to bear fruit.

Prior to this the 'draconian enforcement' by these 'spy car' vehicles drove some shopkeepers and small business to the wall.

Refer to this footage at post # 7 at 1:40 onwards:

http://notomob.co.uk
/discussions/index.p
hp/topic,1281.msg107
18/topicseen.html#ms
g10718

It will be necessary to copy and paste the above links into your browser.
Lefty These so called 'safety' cars were responsible for running down a child in Southend: http://www.echo-news .co.uk/news/9178252. Young_boy_hit_by_CCT V_car_on_Southend_se afront/ Therefore it is YOU that 'supports lawbreaking.' 'Lawbreaking' is something that these vehicles do on a regular basis : http://www.echo-news .co.uk/news/local_ne ws/southend/9659544. Southend_man_s_landm ark_spy_car_victory/ The issuing of tickets by the use of these vehicles in areas where CEO's can freely and easily patrol on foot is against the statutory guidance which Authorities must have regard to. Clearly in Southend there is no regard to this. In Richmond upon Thames it was decided that the use of these vehicles was not necessary. They were removed from our roads: http://cabnet.richmo nd.gov.uk/documents/ s29394/Item%2012%20- %20Fair%20Parking%20 Review.pdf We have had a 'Fair Parking' enforcement policy here since that time. There have been no reported incidents of any traffic problems or saftey events since this was done over a year ago. Businesses are now recovering. Lord True's policy of 'Fair Parking' and working with small businesses to encourage vibrant local shopping streets has now started to bear fruit. Prior to this the 'draconian enforcement' by these 'spy car' vehicles drove some shopkeepers and small business to the wall. Refer to this footage at post # 7 at 1:40 onwards: http://notomob.co.uk /discussions/index.p hp/topic,1281.msg107 18/topicseen.html#ms g10718 It will be necessary to copy and paste the above links into your browser. Nigel Wise
  • Score: 1

9:17am Tue 19 Jun 12

V 4 Vengance says...

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
V 4 Vengance wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.
I think you will find these Scam cam cars have all ready knocked over one small child. I also think you will find that some of the staff who drive these cars are extremely rude to the public making obscene gestures and swearing at them. I am all for this type of public assistance. Surely the object of the exercise is to improve road safety. Covert issuing of PCN's is all about raising revenue and nothing to do with safety. If parking control is about road safety or traffic flow, how does allowing the offence to be committed whilst filming it improve the situation? The answer is that it does not help at all. A more visible and effective deterrent is a Parking Warden or CEO as they are called these days. So let's stop trying to pull the wool over any ones eyes IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!
They only take money from people who think they can flout the law by parking illegally. Park legally and you won't get fined. It's a no-brainier.

You're just whining because now it's a lot easier to catch illegal parking.

If you really support safety then report illegal parking to the council. But you don't support safety, you're supporting lawbreaking by aiding and abetting the lawbreakers.

You're no different than idiots who help keep dangerous drivers on the roads by warning oncoming speeders of police speed checkpoints.

You seem to think you're some kind of heroes, you're nothing of the sort. You're behaving like whiny school kids who've had their toys taken away.
Ha ha, the only person whining is you. I am not whining I am really happy. Happy that these guys are are around and happy that it really gets up you're nose so much. If I see them out and about I will applaud them. GO TO IT NoToMob well done.
[quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]V 4 Vengance[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.[/p][/quote]I think you will find these Scam cam cars have all ready knocked over one small child. I also think you will find that some of the staff who drive these cars are extremely rude to the public making obscene gestures and swearing at them. I am all for this type of public assistance. Surely the object of the exercise is to improve road safety. Covert issuing of PCN's is all about raising revenue and nothing to do with safety. If parking control is about road safety or traffic flow, how does allowing the offence to be committed whilst filming it improve the situation? The answer is that it does not help at all. A more visible and effective deterrent is a Parking Warden or CEO as they are called these days. So let's stop trying to pull the wool over any ones eyes IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY![/p][/quote]They only take money from people who think they can flout the law by parking illegally. Park legally and you won't get fined. It's a no-brainier. You're just whining because now it's a lot easier to catch illegal parking. If you really support safety then report illegal parking to the council. But you don't support safety, you're supporting lawbreaking by aiding and abetting the lawbreakers. You're no different than idiots who help keep dangerous drivers on the roads by warning oncoming speeders of police speed checkpoints. You seem to think you're some kind of heroes, you're nothing of the sort. You're behaving like whiny school kids who've had their toys taken away.[/p][/quote]Ha ha, the only person whining is you. I am not whining I am really happy. Happy that these guys are are around and happy that it really gets up you're nose so much. If I see them out and about I will applaud them. GO TO IT NoToMob well done. V 4 Vengance
  • Score: 4

9:47am Tue 19 Jun 12

Alekhine says...

Does anyone know what the outcome was of the similar campaign in London against the Westminster spy cars?
Does anyone know what the outcome was of the similar campaign in London against the Westminster spy cars? Alekhine
  • Score: 0

10:02am Tue 19 Jun 12

Lefty Cyclist Type says...

Nigel Wise wrote:
Lefty

These so called 'safety' cars were responsible for running down a child in Southend:

http://www.echo-news

.co.uk/news/9178252.

Young_boy_hit_by_CCT

V_car_on_Southend_se

afront/

Therefore it is YOU that 'supports lawbreaking.'

'Lawbreaking' is something that these vehicles do on a regular basis :

http://www.echo-news

.co.uk/news/local_ne

ws/southend/9659544.

Southend_man_s_landm

ark_spy_car_victory/



The issuing of tickets by the use of these vehicles in areas where CEO's can freely and easily patrol on foot is against the statutory guidance which Authorities must have regard to. Clearly in Southend there is no regard to this.

In Richmond upon Thames it was decided that the use of these vehicles was not necessary. They were removed from our roads:

http://cabnet.richmo

nd.gov.uk/documents/

s29394/Item%2012%20-

%20Fair%20Parking%20

Review.pdf

We have had a 'Fair Parking' enforcement policy here since that time. There have been no reported incidents of any traffic problems or saftey events since this was done over a year ago.

Businesses are now recovering. Lord True's policy of 'Fair Parking' and working with small businesses to encourage vibrant local shopping streets has now started to bear fruit.

Prior to this the 'draconian enforcement' by these 'spy car' vehicles drove some shopkeepers and small business to the wall.

Refer to this footage at post # 7 at 1:40 onwards:

http://notomob.co.uk

/discussions/index.p

hp/topic,1281.msg107

18/topicseen.html#ms

g10718

It will be necessary to copy and paste the above links into your browser.
Check your facts. The child ran into the road from between two vans parked illegally on the pavement. It would have been difficult for most drivers to avoid hitting him. I have been viewing your website for a couple of days. What I see are a bunch of people who are full of themselves bragging about their intimidatory tactics towards people trying to do their jobs and earn a living.

Grow up.
[quote][p][bold]Nigel Wise[/bold] wrote: Lefty These so called 'safety' cars were responsible for running down a child in Southend: http://www.echo-news .co.uk/news/9178252. Young_boy_hit_by_CCT V_car_on_Southend_se afront/ Therefore it is YOU that 'supports lawbreaking.' 'Lawbreaking' is something that these vehicles do on a regular basis : http://www.echo-news .co.uk/news/local_ne ws/southend/9659544. Southend_man_s_landm ark_spy_car_victory/ The issuing of tickets by the use of these vehicles in areas where CEO's can freely and easily patrol on foot is against the statutory guidance which Authorities must have regard to. Clearly in Southend there is no regard to this. In Richmond upon Thames it was decided that the use of these vehicles was not necessary. They were removed from our roads: http://cabnet.richmo nd.gov.uk/documents/ s29394/Item%2012%20- %20Fair%20Parking%20 Review.pdf We have had a 'Fair Parking' enforcement policy here since that time. There have been no reported incidents of any traffic problems or saftey events since this was done over a year ago. Businesses are now recovering. Lord True's policy of 'Fair Parking' and working with small businesses to encourage vibrant local shopping streets has now started to bear fruit. Prior to this the 'draconian enforcement' by these 'spy car' vehicles drove some shopkeepers and small business to the wall. Refer to this footage at post # 7 at 1:40 onwards: http://notomob.co.uk /discussions/index.p hp/topic,1281.msg107 18/topicseen.html#ms g10718 It will be necessary to copy and paste the above links into your browser.[/p][/quote]Check your facts. The child ran into the road from between two vans parked illegally on the pavement. It would have been difficult for most drivers to avoid hitting him. I have been viewing your website for a couple of days. What I see are a bunch of people who are full of themselves bragging about their intimidatory tactics towards people trying to do their jobs and earn a living. Grow up. Lefty Cyclist Type
  • Score: -4

10:02am Tue 19 Jun 12

The Cater Wood Creeper says...

Please could some one make clear to me the difference between getting a fine from a enforcement car or foot warden???



you're more likely to break a knuckle punching a spy car....

A spy car can't get upset when you call it names...
[quote]Please could some one make clear to me the difference between getting a fine from a enforcement car or foot warden??? [/quote] you're more likely to break a knuckle punching a spy car.... A spy car can't get upset when you call it names... The Cater Wood Creeper
  • Score: 2

10:42am Tue 19 Jun 12

meldrew84 says...

My main question for the bikers would be.... at what point did your lives become so boring and pointless you all felt the need to waste your time doing this???

If you are so concerned with public safety and helping others why don't you find a REAL cause to dedicate your time to? Perhaps if you used your intimidating presence around gangs of youths and druggies you could be classed as helpful....

Or if you are determined to parade in the motoring world and keep your presence "legal", perhaps you could spend your time reporting every vehicle you see that is breaking the law and posing a danger to the public ie speeding, using mobile phones whilst driving etc.

I just get the feeling you are a bunch of little bully boys who have had to think up a new way to make your point regarding parking tickets, it's all too easy to intimidate one traffic warden on foot and drive off before you can be reprimanded, but how do you tackle a car that you can't threaten and argue with?? Then one of you "geniuses" thought up the hells angels reject society....

Well clap clap guys, aren't we clever little boys then XD
My main question for the bikers would be.... at what point did your lives become so boring and pointless you all felt the need to waste your time doing this??? If you are so concerned with public safety and helping others why don't you find a REAL cause to dedicate your time to? Perhaps if you used your intimidating presence around gangs of youths and druggies you could be classed as helpful.... Or if you are determined to parade in the motoring world and keep your presence "legal", perhaps you could spend your time reporting every vehicle you see that is breaking the law and posing a danger to the public ie speeding, using mobile phones whilst driving etc. I just get the feeling you are a bunch of little bully boys who have had to think up a new way to make your point regarding parking tickets, it's all too easy to intimidate one traffic warden on foot and drive off before you can be reprimanded, but how do you tackle a car that you can't threaten and argue with?? Then one of you "geniuses" thought up the hells angels reject society.... Well clap clap guys, aren't we clever little boys then XD meldrew84
  • Score: -6

11:22am Tue 19 Jun 12

KusariNinja says...

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.
You just don't get it do you! They were NOT aiding and abetting motoring offences. They were warning drivers NOT to park where it's deemed illegal by the spy ca so as not to get fined, exactly what the Council have been supposedly promoting since the spy car came into existence!

Oh and just to clarify a certain point. MR Wells is NOT the leader of No To Mob, never has been and never will be! He has only been involved in the southend campaign. The No To Mob are a genuine bunch of guys who are trying to do the public a favour and Mr Wells was introduced to them via the Spy Car campaign. The rport by the Echo stating he is their "leader" is totally wrong! and I know this first hand!
[quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.[/p][/quote]You just don't get it do you! They were NOT aiding and abetting motoring offences. They were warning drivers NOT to park where it's deemed illegal by the spy ca so as not to get fined, exactly what the Council have been supposedly promoting since the spy car came into existence! Oh and just to clarify a certain point. MR Wells is NOT the leader of No To Mob, never has been and never will be! He has only been involved in the southend campaign. The No To Mob are a genuine bunch of guys who are trying to do the public a favour and Mr Wells was introduced to them via the Spy Car campaign. The rport by the Echo stating he is their "leader" is totally wrong! and I know this first hand! KusariNinja
  • Score: 2

12:18pm Tue 19 Jun 12

Nigel Wise says...

Quote from lefty cyclist:

"Check your facts. The child ran into the road from between two vans parked illegally on the pavement. It would have been difficult for most drivers to avoid hitting him."

Rubbish the 'safety' car struck the child. No safety car - no accident simples.

You seem to have a lot of inside knowledge regarding the 'facts'. Where did you get these from?

When I first learnt to be a 'cyclist' and later to drive a car I was taught to be very cautious when passing parked vehicles because children might run out from between them. This is of particular relevance on a seafront with a 20 mph speed limit.

Another quote from 'Lefty':

"I have been viewing your web site for a couple of days
What I see are a bunch of people who are full of themselves bragging about their intimidatory tactics towards people trying to do their jobs and earn a living."

We have no problem with anyone doing their jobs lawfully. We assist them lawfully in doing their jobs.

The job of an enforcement officer is to achieve 100% compliance and issue no tickets. Parking Policy and Enforcement Traffic Management Act 2004: "The objective of CPE should be for 100% compliance, with no penalty charges."

We do not intimidate anyone. If we were intimidating CEO's we would be subject to the laws of the land. The Police having been called and their time wasted by APOCA could find nothing wrong with what we were doing.

KusariNinja

I can confirm that Mr Wells is not our leader. In fact we do not have a leader.
Quote from lefty cyclist: "Check your facts. The child ran into the road from between two vans parked illegally on the pavement. It would have been difficult for most drivers to avoid hitting him." Rubbish the 'safety' car struck the child. No safety car - no accident simples. You seem to have a lot of inside knowledge regarding the 'facts'. Where did you get these from? When I first learnt to be a 'cyclist' and later to drive a car I was taught to be very cautious when passing parked vehicles because children might run out from between them. This is of particular relevance on a seafront with a 20 mph speed limit. Another quote from 'Lefty': "I have been viewing your web site for a couple of days What I see are a bunch of people who are full of themselves bragging about their intimidatory tactics towards people trying to do their jobs and earn a living." We have no problem with anyone doing their jobs lawfully. We assist them lawfully in doing their jobs. The job of an enforcement officer is to achieve 100% compliance and issue no tickets. Parking Policy and Enforcement Traffic Management Act 2004: "The objective of CPE should be for 100% compliance, with no penalty charges." We do not intimidate anyone. If we were intimidating CEO's we would be subject to the laws of the land. The Police having been called and their time wasted by APOCA could find nothing wrong with what we were doing. KusariNinja I can confirm that Mr Wells is not our leader. In fact we do not have a leader. Nigel Wise
  • Score: 1

12:40pm Tue 19 Jun 12

meldrew84 says...

Nigel Wise wrote:
Quote from lefty cyclist:

"Check your facts. The child ran into the road from between two vans parked illegally on the pavement. It would have been difficult for most drivers to avoid hitting him."

Rubbish the 'safety' car struck the child. No safety car - no accident simples.

You seem to have a lot of inside knowledge regarding the 'facts'. Where did you get these from?

When I first learnt to be a 'cyclist' and later to drive a car I was taught to be very cautious when passing parked vehicles because children might run out from between them. This is of particular relevance on a seafront with a 20 mph speed limit.

Another quote from 'Lefty':

"I have been viewing your web site for a couple of days
What I see are a bunch of people who are full of themselves bragging about their intimidatory tactics towards people trying to do their jobs and earn a living."

We have no problem with anyone doing their jobs lawfully. We assist them lawfully in doing their jobs.

The job of an enforcement officer is to achieve 100% compliance and issue no tickets. Parking Policy and Enforcement Traffic Management Act 2004: "The objective of CPE should be for 100% compliance, with no penalty charges."

We do not intimidate anyone. If we were intimidating CEO's we would be subject to the laws of the land. The Police having been called and their time wasted by APOCA could find nothing wrong with what we were doing.

KusariNinja

I can confirm that Mr Wells is not our leader. In fact we do not have a leader.
You are all wasting your own time though....

Seriously guys, get a life!
[quote][p][bold]Nigel Wise[/bold] wrote: Quote from lefty cyclist: "Check your facts. The child ran into the road from between two vans parked illegally on the pavement. It would have been difficult for most drivers to avoid hitting him." Rubbish the 'safety' car struck the child. No safety car - no accident simples. You seem to have a lot of inside knowledge regarding the 'facts'. Where did you get these from? When I first learnt to be a 'cyclist' and later to drive a car I was taught to be very cautious when passing parked vehicles because children might run out from between them. This is of particular relevance on a seafront with a 20 mph speed limit. Another quote from 'Lefty': "I have been viewing your web site for a couple of days What I see are a bunch of people who are full of themselves bragging about their intimidatory tactics towards people trying to do their jobs and earn a living." We have no problem with anyone doing their jobs lawfully. We assist them lawfully in doing their jobs. The job of an enforcement officer is to achieve 100% compliance and issue no tickets. Parking Policy and Enforcement Traffic Management Act 2004: "The objective of CPE should be for 100% compliance, with no penalty charges." We do not intimidate anyone. If we were intimidating CEO's we would be subject to the laws of the land. The Police having been called and their time wasted by APOCA could find nothing wrong with what we were doing. KusariNinja I can confirm that Mr Wells is not our leader. In fact we do not have a leader.[/p][/quote]You are all wasting your own time though.... Seriously guys, get a life! meldrew84
  • Score: -3

12:42pm Tue 19 Jun 12

Lefty Cyclist Type says...

Nigel Wise wrote:
Quote from lefty cyclist:

"Check your facts. The child ran into the road from between two vans parked illegally on the pavement. It would have been difficult for most drivers to avoid hitting him."

Rubbish the 'safety' car struck the child. No safety car - no accident simples.

You seem to have a lot of inside knowledge regarding the 'facts'. Where did you get these from?

When I first learnt to be a 'cyclist' and later to drive a car I was taught to be very cautious when passing parked vehicles because children might run out from between them. This is of particular relevance on a seafront with a 20 mph speed limit.

Another quote from 'Lefty':

"I have been viewing your web site for a couple of days
What I see are a bunch of people who are full of themselves bragging about their intimidatory tactics towards people trying to do their jobs and earn a living."

We have no problem with anyone doing their jobs lawfully. We assist them lawfully in doing their jobs.

The job of an enforcement officer is to achieve 100% compliance and issue no tickets. Parking Policy and Enforcement Traffic Management Act 2004: "The objective of CPE should be for 100% compliance, with no penalty charges."

We do not intimidate anyone. If we were intimidating CEO's we would be subject to the laws of the land. The Police having been called and their time wasted by APOCA could find nothing wrong with what we were doing.

KusariNinja

I can confirm that Mr Wells is not our leader. In fact we do not have a leader.
Why do people in your group actively seek out the names of Parking Enforcement Vehicle drivers, if not for the purposes of intimidation? And don't say you don't, I've seen people saying you do on your forum.


"We assist them lawfully in doing their jobs. "

Codswallop. You assist lawbreakers in getting away with breaking the law.
[quote][p][bold]Nigel Wise[/bold] wrote: Quote from lefty cyclist: "Check your facts. The child ran into the road from between two vans parked illegally on the pavement. It would have been difficult for most drivers to avoid hitting him." Rubbish the 'safety' car struck the child. No safety car - no accident simples. You seem to have a lot of inside knowledge regarding the 'facts'. Where did you get these from? When I first learnt to be a 'cyclist' and later to drive a car I was taught to be very cautious when passing parked vehicles because children might run out from between them. This is of particular relevance on a seafront with a 20 mph speed limit. Another quote from 'Lefty': "I have been viewing your web site for a couple of days What I see are a bunch of people who are full of themselves bragging about their intimidatory tactics towards people trying to do their jobs and earn a living." We have no problem with anyone doing their jobs lawfully. We assist them lawfully in doing their jobs. The job of an enforcement officer is to achieve 100% compliance and issue no tickets. Parking Policy and Enforcement Traffic Management Act 2004: "The objective of CPE should be for 100% compliance, with no penalty charges." We do not intimidate anyone. If we were intimidating CEO's we would be subject to the laws of the land. The Police having been called and their time wasted by APOCA could find nothing wrong with what we were doing. KusariNinja I can confirm that Mr Wells is not our leader. In fact we do not have a leader.[/p][/quote]Why do people in your group actively seek out the names of Parking Enforcement Vehicle drivers, if not for the purposes of intimidation? And don't say you don't, I've seen people saying you do on your forum. "We assist them lawfully in doing their jobs. " Codswallop. You assist lawbreakers in getting away with breaking the law. Lefty Cyclist Type
  • Score: -6

1:15pm Tue 19 Jun 12

Alekhine says...

I've just re-read some old articles on the Westminster spy car protests and the "no to the bike parking tax" protests that were in in London a while ago.
.
No other London council has since tried to introduce spy cars or charge for previously free bike parking so, in a very real sense, the method of protest was a success. Also i could not find reference to any of the protesters being prosecuted for breaking the law!
.
Parley vous Francais?- well you should do, they are much better at resisting this type of "political policy creap" than we are.
I've just re-read some old articles on the Westminster spy car protests and the "no to the bike parking tax" protests that were in in London a while ago. . No other London council has since tried to introduce spy cars or charge for previously free bike parking so, in a very real sense, the method of protest was a success. Also i could not find reference to any of the protesters being prosecuted for breaking the law! . Parley vous Francais?- well you should do, they are much better at resisting this type of "political policy creap" than we are. Alekhine
  • Score: 0

1:35pm Tue 19 Jun 12

KusariNinja says...

Joe Hune wrote:
meldrew84 wrote:
emcee wrote:
Joe Hune wrote:
meldrew84 wrote: And perhaps Mr Wells should look into premises with parking facilities instead of encouraging illegal parking just to profit himself!
Just shows what a great business man Mr Wells is to pick a premises without parking! The lights are on, but obviously nobody was home when he thought opening a shop in this location without any parking was good! So because I haven't got anything else to do Mr Wells thinks he will invite a load of sad old bikers to Southend to do his dirty work for him! Get a life Mr Wells!!
Maybe Mr Wells had the premises long before the parking restrictions were as they are.
The parking along Woodgrange is hardly restricted anyway! There's multiple spaces along the stretch of road where his shop is and usually i only see the wardens ensuring people don't out stay their welcome in the parking spots, so they are effectively trying to help him by ensuring the spots are regularly free for multiple customers to come and go as opposed to one or two selfish drivers hogging the spot all day! Not to mention there is parking on the side streets. What this buffoon has failed to recognise is the cars and wardens are doing his business a favour by making sure people don't take the spot for themselves all day! Or does he not realise people from the train station will be keen to hog the spots all day, before his custom even attempts an arrival if allowed to do so! I have a suspicion the man has not much else to do apart from make a feeble attempt at getting his business advertised for free in the local paper in an attempt at luring fellow supporters to his shop. Just a thought......
So true!

This idiot just wants his name in the paper as he knows the ECHO struggle for proper news and will print anything!

When Mr Peter Watkins and Mr Bob Wells had their mug shots in the ECHO, you could tell they hadn't got an once of brains between them!

The more the spaces are kept clear, the more customers will pop in a give you business, so well done the Wardens!

But if these two Buffoons encourage their lazy customers to park in the Bus Stop on Woodgrange Drive, that is different.
To Nigel Wise.

Many thanks for the clarification. We have no problem being associated with No To Mob, just would like papers to get the facts straight but then what with the resident trolls that frequent these messages, facts mean nothing to them.

I could get on a name calling and insult rant like some of the people here but I do not have the brains according to Joe Hune... By the way Joe, it is pretty amazing how you can judge someone's mental ability by a "mugshot" in the paper. Lets see a picture of you then everyone can make a similar judgement back. Or better still GROW UP!
[quote][p][bold]Joe Hune[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]meldrew84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Hune[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]meldrew84[/bold] wrote: And perhaps Mr Wells should look into premises with parking facilities instead of encouraging illegal parking just to profit himself![/p][/quote]Just shows what a great business man Mr Wells is to pick a premises without parking! The lights are on, but obviously nobody was home when he thought opening a shop in this location without any parking was good! So because I haven't got anything else to do Mr Wells thinks he will invite a load of sad old bikers to Southend to do his dirty work for him! Get a life Mr Wells!![/p][/quote]Maybe Mr Wells had the premises long before the parking restrictions were as they are.[/p][/quote]The parking along Woodgrange is hardly restricted anyway! There's multiple spaces along the stretch of road where his shop is and usually i only see the wardens ensuring people don't out stay their welcome in the parking spots, so they are effectively trying to help him by ensuring the spots are regularly free for multiple customers to come and go as opposed to one or two selfish drivers hogging the spot all day! Not to mention there is parking on the side streets. What this buffoon has failed to recognise is the cars and wardens are doing his business a favour by making sure people don't take the spot for themselves all day! Or does he not realise people from the train station will be keen to hog the spots all day, before his custom even attempts an arrival if allowed to do so! I have a suspicion the man has not much else to do apart from make a feeble attempt at getting his business advertised for free in the local paper in an attempt at luring fellow supporters to his shop. Just a thought......[/p][/quote]So true! This idiot just wants his name in the paper as he knows the ECHO struggle for proper news and will print anything! When Mr Peter Watkins and Mr Bob Wells had their mug shots in the ECHO, you could tell they hadn't got an once of brains between them! The more the spaces are kept clear, the more customers will pop in a give you business, so well done the Wardens! But if these two Buffoons encourage their lazy customers to park in the Bus Stop on Woodgrange Drive, that is different.[/p][/quote]To Nigel Wise. Many thanks for the clarification. We have no problem being associated with No To Mob, just would like papers to get the facts straight but then what with the resident trolls that frequent these messages, facts mean nothing to them. I could get on a name calling and insult rant like some of the people here but I do not have the brains according to Joe Hune... By the way Joe, it is pretty amazing how you can judge someone's mental ability by a "mugshot" in the paper. Lets see a picture of you then everyone can make a similar judgement back. Or better still GROW UP! KusariNinja
  • Score: 3

2:45pm Tue 19 Jun 12

fredfoot says...

Travelling on a bus in Woodgrange Drive today I noticed the bus stop was full of cars causing the bus to stop in the middle of the road to let some old passengers off, this is clearly marked no stopping except buses pity the spy car was not about I hope Bob Wells tells these people they are not allowed to park there, I doubt it!!
Travelling on a bus in Woodgrange Drive today I noticed the bus stop was full of cars causing the bus to stop in the middle of the road to let some old passengers off, this is clearly marked no stopping except buses pity the spy car was not about I hope Bob Wells tells these people they are not allowed to park there, I doubt it!! fredfoot
  • Score: 1

2:49pm Tue 19 Jun 12

emcee says...

Max Impact wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
The Bald Eagle wrote: I am one of these so called "sad" "muppets" who has taken to assisting with public safety and traffic flow in your town. As is admitted in the Echo's article by Andrew Lewis, director for enterprise, tourism and the environment at Southend Council , neither myself nor my colleagues are doing anything illegal. It wasn't us who told him that, it would have been the police. That would be the same police who were called by APCOA when we started assisting the spy cars with their visibility last week. I have a question for our detractors on here, most of whom I suspect are employed by the council's PR (spin) department. My colleagues and I have answered David Cameron's call to join his "Big Society" and we are holding public servants to account for their actions. So my question to our detractors is this. If we stay within the law and assist with public safety and traffic flow, why are you so keen for us to stop?
Because there is no place for vigilante thugs on Southend's streets. We don't need a bunch of morons riding around our town deliberately intimidating people going about their lawful business.
Well said lefty.

Wonder if these "vigilantes" would be happy if somebody was to follow them round all day watching their every move, bet they would be the first to moan about it.

As for using the masks probably improves their looks, if there is a female driver of the CCTV car would they still use the mask? how would they like somebody to follow their wife/partner whist wearing a face mask, would they find it intimidating or would be be OK for us to do.
No it was not well said.
I have no opinion on the use of spy cars either way but as I see it these bikers are far from "thugs". They are merely excercising their right to ride the road making other road users aware of certain other "road users". Where is the thuggery in that. Also, riding in front of or behind another vehicle, as long as it is legal, is not intimidation. The council and, possibly, the spy car operators (although we only have Andrew Lewis word for that), are just trying to make excuses for the effect of gaining public sympathy.
It seems the problem that lies with spy cars is that they cannot judge each circumstance on it's merits. There are many instances where blue badge users, people with punctures, legal loading/unloading etc. have all been ticketed using spy cars because theirs is a "catch all", ask questions later, policy. Whereas, a traffic warden can, as per recommendations, use their discretion at the time of the incident.
Nobody is denying that illegal parkers should be punished but should we not be using methods to target the genuinely illegal parkers. If you cast a big net with small holes you will catch far more of those who are innocent than you would if you specifically targeted those who are not.
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Bald Eagle[/bold] wrote: I am one of these so called "sad" "muppets" who has taken to assisting with public safety and traffic flow in your town. As is admitted in the Echo's article by Andrew Lewis, director for enterprise, tourism and the environment at Southend Council , neither myself nor my colleagues are doing anything illegal. It wasn't us who told him that, it would have been the police. That would be the same police who were called by APCOA when we started assisting the spy cars with their visibility last week. I have a question for our detractors on here, most of whom I suspect are employed by the council's PR (spin) department. My colleagues and I have answered David Cameron's call to join his "Big Society" and we are holding public servants to account for their actions. So my question to our detractors is this. If we stay within the law and assist with public safety and traffic flow, why are you so keen for us to stop?[/p][/quote]Because there is no place for vigilante thugs on Southend's streets. We don't need a bunch of morons riding around our town deliberately intimidating people going about their lawful business.[/p][/quote]Well said lefty. Wonder if these "vigilantes" would be happy if somebody was to follow them round all day watching their every move, bet they would be the first to moan about it. As for using the masks probably improves their looks, if there is a female driver of the CCTV car would they still use the mask? how would they like somebody to follow their wife/partner whist wearing a face mask, would they find it intimidating or would be be OK for us to do.[/p][/quote]No it was not well said. I have no opinion on the use of spy cars either way but as I see it these bikers are far from "thugs". They are merely excercising their right to ride the road making other road users aware of certain other "road users". Where is the thuggery in that. Also, riding in front of or behind another vehicle, as long as it is legal, is not intimidation. The council and, possibly, the spy car operators (although we only have Andrew Lewis word for that), are just trying to make excuses for the effect of gaining public sympathy. It seems the problem that lies with spy cars is that they cannot judge each circumstance on it's merits. There are many instances where blue badge users, people with punctures, legal loading/unloading etc. have all been ticketed using spy cars because theirs is a "catch all", ask questions later, policy. Whereas, a traffic warden can, as per recommendations, use their discretion at the time of the incident. Nobody is denying that illegal parkers should be punished but should we not be using methods to target the genuinely illegal parkers. If you cast a big net with small holes you will catch far more of those who are innocent than you would if you specifically targeted those who are not. emcee
  • Score: 3

3:48pm Tue 19 Jun 12

Lefty Cyclist Type says...

emcee wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
The Bald Eagle wrote: I am one of these so called "sad" "muppets" who has taken to assisting with public safety and traffic flow in your town. As is admitted in the Echo's article by Andrew Lewis, director for enterprise, tourism and the environment at Southend Council , neither myself nor my colleagues are doing anything illegal. It wasn't us who told him that, it would have been the police. That would be the same police who were called by APCOA when we started assisting the spy cars with their visibility last week. I have a question for our detractors on here, most of whom I suspect are employed by the council's PR (spin) department. My colleagues and I have answered David Cameron's call to join his "Big Society" and we are holding public servants to account for their actions. So my question to our detractors is this. If we stay within the law and assist with public safety and traffic flow, why are you so keen for us to stop?
Because there is no place for vigilante thugs on Southend's streets. We don't need a bunch of morons riding around our town deliberately intimidating people going about their lawful business.
Well said lefty.

Wonder if these "vigilantes" would be happy if somebody was to follow them round all day watching their every move, bet they would be the first to moan about it.

As for using the masks probably improves their looks, if there is a female driver of the CCTV car would they still use the mask? how would they like somebody to follow their wife/partner whist wearing a face mask, would they find it intimidating or would be be OK for us to do.
No it was not well said.
I have no opinion on the use of spy cars either way but as I see it these bikers are far from "thugs". They are merely excercising their right to ride the road making other road users aware of certain other "road users". Where is the thuggery in that. Also, riding in front of or behind another vehicle, as long as it is legal, is not intimidation. The council and, possibly, the spy car operators (although we only have Andrew Lewis word for that), are just trying to make excuses for the effect of gaining public sympathy.
It seems the problem that lies with spy cars is that they cannot judge each circumstance on it's merits. There are many instances where blue badge users, people with punctures, legal loading/unloading etc. have all been ticketed using spy cars because theirs is a "catch all", ask questions later, policy. Whereas, a traffic warden can, as per recommendations, use their discretion at the time of the incident.
Nobody is denying that illegal parkers should be punished but should we not be using methods to target the genuinely illegal parkers. If you cast a big net with small holes you will catch far more of those who are innocent than you would if you specifically targeted those who are not.
There is an appeals procedure.
[quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Bald Eagle[/bold] wrote: I am one of these so called "sad" "muppets" who has taken to assisting with public safety and traffic flow in your town. As is admitted in the Echo's article by Andrew Lewis, director for enterprise, tourism and the environment at Southend Council , neither myself nor my colleagues are doing anything illegal. It wasn't us who told him that, it would have been the police. That would be the same police who were called by APCOA when we started assisting the spy cars with their visibility last week. I have a question for our detractors on here, most of whom I suspect are employed by the council's PR (spin) department. My colleagues and I have answered David Cameron's call to join his "Big Society" and we are holding public servants to account for their actions. So my question to our detractors is this. If we stay within the law and assist with public safety and traffic flow, why are you so keen for us to stop?[/p][/quote]Because there is no place for vigilante thugs on Southend's streets. We don't need a bunch of morons riding around our town deliberately intimidating people going about their lawful business.[/p][/quote]Well said lefty. Wonder if these "vigilantes" would be happy if somebody was to follow them round all day watching their every move, bet they would be the first to moan about it. As for using the masks probably improves their looks, if there is a female driver of the CCTV car would they still use the mask? how would they like somebody to follow their wife/partner whist wearing a face mask, would they find it intimidating or would be be OK for us to do.[/p][/quote]No it was not well said. I have no opinion on the use of spy cars either way but as I see it these bikers are far from "thugs". They are merely excercising their right to ride the road making other road users aware of certain other "road users". Where is the thuggery in that. Also, riding in front of or behind another vehicle, as long as it is legal, is not intimidation. The council and, possibly, the spy car operators (although we only have Andrew Lewis word for that), are just trying to make excuses for the effect of gaining public sympathy. It seems the problem that lies with spy cars is that they cannot judge each circumstance on it's merits. There are many instances where blue badge users, people with punctures, legal loading/unloading etc. have all been ticketed using spy cars because theirs is a "catch all", ask questions later, policy. Whereas, a traffic warden can, as per recommendations, use their discretion at the time of the incident. Nobody is denying that illegal parkers should be punished but should we not be using methods to target the genuinely illegal parkers. If you cast a big net with small holes you will catch far more of those who are innocent than you would if you specifically targeted those who are not.[/p][/quote]There is an appeals procedure. Lefty Cyclist Type
  • Score: -3

3:54pm Tue 19 Jun 12

Alekhine says...

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
emcee wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
The Bald Eagle wrote: I am one of these so called "sad" "muppets" who has taken to assisting with public safety and traffic flow in your town. As is admitted in the Echo's article by Andrew Lewis, director for enterprise, tourism and the environment at Southend Council , neither myself nor my colleagues are doing anything illegal. It wasn't us who told him that, it would have been the police. That would be the same police who were called by APCOA when we started assisting the spy cars with their visibility last week. I have a question for our detractors on here, most of whom I suspect are employed by the council's PR (spin) department. My colleagues and I have answered David Cameron's call to join his "Big Society" and we are holding public servants to account for their actions. So my question to our detractors is this. If we stay within the law and assist with public safety and traffic flow, why are you so keen for us to stop?
Because there is no place for vigilante thugs on Southend's streets. We don't need a bunch of morons riding around our town deliberately intimidating people going about their lawful business.
Well said lefty. Wonder if these "vigilantes" would be happy if somebody was to follow them round all day watching their every move, bet they would be the first to moan about it. As for using the masks probably improves their looks, if there is a female driver of the CCTV car would they still use the mask? how would they like somebody to follow their wife/partner whist wearing a face mask, would they find it intimidating or would be be OK for us to do.
No it was not well said. I have no opinion on the use of spy cars either way but as I see it these bikers are far from "thugs". They are merely excercising their right to ride the road making other road users aware of certain other "road users". Where is the thuggery in that. Also, riding in front of or behind another vehicle, as long as it is legal, is not intimidation. The council and, possibly, the spy car operators (although we only have Andrew Lewis word for that), are just trying to make excuses for the effect of gaining public sympathy. It seems the problem that lies with spy cars is that they cannot judge each circumstance on it's merits. There are many instances where blue badge users, people with punctures, legal loading/unloading etc. have all been ticketed using spy cars because theirs is a "catch all", ask questions later, policy. Whereas, a traffic warden can, as per recommendations, use their discretion at the time of the incident. Nobody is denying that illegal parkers should be punished but should we not be using methods to target the genuinely illegal parkers. If you cast a big net with small holes you will catch far more of those who are innocent than you would if you specifically targeted those who are not.
There is an appeals procedure.
So thats guilty until proven innocent then?
[quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Bald Eagle[/bold] wrote: I am one of these so called "sad" "muppets" who has taken to assisting with public safety and traffic flow in your town. As is admitted in the Echo's article by Andrew Lewis, director for enterprise, tourism and the environment at Southend Council , neither myself nor my colleagues are doing anything illegal. It wasn't us who told him that, it would have been the police. That would be the same police who were called by APCOA when we started assisting the spy cars with their visibility last week. I have a question for our detractors on here, most of whom I suspect are employed by the council's PR (spin) department. My colleagues and I have answered David Cameron's call to join his "Big Society" and we are holding public servants to account for their actions. So my question to our detractors is this. If we stay within the law and assist with public safety and traffic flow, why are you so keen for us to stop?[/p][/quote]Because there is no place for vigilante thugs on Southend's streets. We don't need a bunch of morons riding around our town deliberately intimidating people going about their lawful business.[/p][/quote]Well said lefty. Wonder if these "vigilantes" would be happy if somebody was to follow them round all day watching their every move, bet they would be the first to moan about it. As for using the masks probably improves their looks, if there is a female driver of the CCTV car would they still use the mask? how would they like somebody to follow their wife/partner whist wearing a face mask, would they find it intimidating or would be be OK for us to do.[/p][/quote]No it was not well said. I have no opinion on the use of spy cars either way but as I see it these bikers are far from "thugs". They are merely excercising their right to ride the road making other road users aware of certain other "road users". Where is the thuggery in that. Also, riding in front of or behind another vehicle, as long as it is legal, is not intimidation. The council and, possibly, the spy car operators (although we only have Andrew Lewis word for that), are just trying to make excuses for the effect of gaining public sympathy. It seems the problem that lies with spy cars is that they cannot judge each circumstance on it's merits. There are many instances where blue badge users, people with punctures, legal loading/unloading etc. have all been ticketed using spy cars because theirs is a "catch all", ask questions later, policy. Whereas, a traffic warden can, as per recommendations, use their discretion at the time of the incident. Nobody is denying that illegal parkers should be punished but should we not be using methods to target the genuinely illegal parkers. If you cast a big net with small holes you will catch far more of those who are innocent than you would if you specifically targeted those who are not.[/p][/quote]There is an appeals procedure.[/p][/quote]So thats guilty until proven innocent then? Alekhine
  • Score: 1

4:07pm Tue 19 Jun 12

Lefty Cyclist Type says...

Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
emcee wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
The Bald Eagle wrote: I am one of these so called "sad" "muppets" who has taken to assisting with public safety and traffic flow in your town. As is admitted in the Echo's article by Andrew Lewis, director for enterprise, tourism and the environment at Southend Council , neither myself nor my colleagues are doing anything illegal. It wasn't us who told him that, it would have been the police. That would be the same police who were called by APCOA when we started assisting the spy cars with their visibility last week. I have a question for our detractors on here, most of whom I suspect are employed by the council's PR (spin) department. My colleagues and I have answered David Cameron's call to join his "Big Society" and we are holding public servants to account for their actions. So my question to our detractors is this. If we stay within the law and assist with public safety and traffic flow, why are you so keen for us to stop?
Because there is no place for vigilante thugs on Southend's streets. We don't need a bunch of morons riding around our town deliberately intimidating people going about their lawful business.
Well said lefty. Wonder if these "vigilantes" would be happy if somebody was to follow them round all day watching their every move, bet they would be the first to moan about it. As for using the masks probably improves their looks, if there is a female driver of the CCTV car would they still use the mask? how would they like somebody to follow their wife/partner whist wearing a face mask, would they find it intimidating or would be be OK for us to do.
No it was not well said. I have no opinion on the use of spy cars either way but as I see it these bikers are far from "thugs". They are merely excercising their right to ride the road making other road users aware of certain other "road users". Where is the thuggery in that. Also, riding in front of or behind another vehicle, as long as it is legal, is not intimidation. The council and, possibly, the spy car operators (although we only have Andrew Lewis word for that), are just trying to make excuses for the effect of gaining public sympathy. It seems the problem that lies with spy cars is that they cannot judge each circumstance on it's merits. There are many instances where blue badge users, people with punctures, legal loading/unloading etc. have all been ticketed using spy cars because theirs is a "catch all", ask questions later, policy. Whereas, a traffic warden can, as per recommendations, use their discretion at the time of the incident. Nobody is denying that illegal parkers should be punished but should we not be using methods to target the genuinely illegal parkers. If you cast a big net with small holes you will catch far more of those who are innocent than you would if you specifically targeted those who are not.
There is an appeals procedure.
So thats guilty until proven innocent then?
If illegally parked, yes.

Don't want a fine, then don't park illegally. I know you are a staunch advocate of such lawbreaking behaviour, but it isn't difficult to understand.
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Bald Eagle[/bold] wrote: I am one of these so called "sad" "muppets" who has taken to assisting with public safety and traffic flow in your town. As is admitted in the Echo's article by Andrew Lewis, director for enterprise, tourism and the environment at Southend Council , neither myself nor my colleagues are doing anything illegal. It wasn't us who told him that, it would have been the police. That would be the same police who were called by APCOA when we started assisting the spy cars with their visibility last week. I have a question for our detractors on here, most of whom I suspect are employed by the council's PR (spin) department. My colleagues and I have answered David Cameron's call to join his "Big Society" and we are holding public servants to account for their actions. So my question to our detractors is this. If we stay within the law and assist with public safety and traffic flow, why are you so keen for us to stop?[/p][/quote]Because there is no place for vigilante thugs on Southend's streets. We don't need a bunch of morons riding around our town deliberately intimidating people going about their lawful business.[/p][/quote]Well said lefty. Wonder if these "vigilantes" would be happy if somebody was to follow them round all day watching their every move, bet they would be the first to moan about it. As for using the masks probably improves their looks, if there is a female driver of the CCTV car would they still use the mask? how would they like somebody to follow their wife/partner whist wearing a face mask, would they find it intimidating or would be be OK for us to do.[/p][/quote]No it was not well said. I have no opinion on the use of spy cars either way but as I see it these bikers are far from "thugs". They are merely excercising their right to ride the road making other road users aware of certain other "road users". Where is the thuggery in that. Also, riding in front of or behind another vehicle, as long as it is legal, is not intimidation. The council and, possibly, the spy car operators (although we only have Andrew Lewis word for that), are just trying to make excuses for the effect of gaining public sympathy. It seems the problem that lies with spy cars is that they cannot judge each circumstance on it's merits. There are many instances where blue badge users, people with punctures, legal loading/unloading etc. have all been ticketed using spy cars because theirs is a "catch all", ask questions later, policy. Whereas, a traffic warden can, as per recommendations, use their discretion at the time of the incident. Nobody is denying that illegal parkers should be punished but should we not be using methods to target the genuinely illegal parkers. If you cast a big net with small holes you will catch far more of those who are innocent than you would if you specifically targeted those who are not.[/p][/quote]There is an appeals procedure.[/p][/quote]So thats guilty until proven innocent then?[/p][/quote]If illegally parked, yes. Don't want a fine, then don't park illegally. I know you are a staunch advocate of such lawbreaking behaviour, but it isn't difficult to understand. Lefty Cyclist Type
  • Score: -5

4:16pm Tue 19 Jun 12

Alekhine says...

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
emcee wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
The Bald Eagle wrote: I am one of these so called "sad" "muppets" who has taken to assisting with public safety and traffic flow in your town. As is admitted in the Echo's article by Andrew Lewis, director for enterprise, tourism and the environment at Southend Council , neither myself nor my colleagues are doing anything illegal. It wasn't us who told him that, it would have been the police. That would be the same police who were called by APCOA when we started assisting the spy cars with their visibility last week. I have a question for our detractors on here, most of whom I suspect are employed by the council's PR (spin) department. My colleagues and I have answered David Cameron's call to join his "Big Society" and we are holding public servants to account for their actions. So my question to our detractors is this. If we stay within the law and assist with public safety and traffic flow, why are you so keen for us to stop?
Because there is no place for vigilante thugs on Southend's streets. We don't need a bunch of morons riding around our town deliberately intimidating people going about their lawful business.
Well said lefty. Wonder if these "vigilantes" would be happy if somebody was to follow them round all day watching their every move, bet they would be the first to moan about it. As for using the masks probably improves their looks, if there is a female driver of the CCTV car would they still use the mask? how would they like somebody to follow their wife/partner whist wearing a face mask, would they find it intimidating or would be be OK for us to do.
No it was not well said. I have no opinion on the use of spy cars either way but as I see it these bikers are far from "thugs". They are merely excercising their right to ride the road making other road users aware of certain other "road users". Where is the thuggery in that. Also, riding in front of or behind another vehicle, as long as it is legal, is not intimidation. The council and, possibly, the spy car operators (although we only have Andrew Lewis word for that), are just trying to make excuses for the effect of gaining public sympathy. It seems the problem that lies with spy cars is that they cannot judge each circumstance on it's merits. There are many instances where blue badge users, people with punctures, legal loading/unloading etc. have all been ticketed using spy cars because theirs is a "catch all", ask questions later, policy. Whereas, a traffic warden can, as per recommendations, use their discretion at the time of the incident. Nobody is denying that illegal parkers should be punished but should we not be using methods to target the genuinely illegal parkers. If you cast a big net with small holes you will catch far more of those who are innocent than you would if you specifically targeted those who are not.
There is an appeals procedure.
So thats guilty until proven innocent then?
If illegally parked, yes. Don't want a fine, then don't park illegally. I know you are a staunch advocate of such lawbreaking behaviour, but it isn't difficult to understand.
Do you actually read messages that you comment on?
.
Qte
There are many instances where blue badge users, people with punctures, legal loading/unloading etc. have all been ticketed using spy cars because theirs is a "catch all", ask questions later, policy.
Unqte.
.
These are not lawbreakers, they are innocent. Why should they be forced to make an appeal under a bad council policy that amounts to guilty. until proven innocent? - Or more often pay up to avoid the hassle.
[quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Bald Eagle[/bold] wrote: I am one of these so called "sad" "muppets" who has taken to assisting with public safety and traffic flow in your town. As is admitted in the Echo's article by Andrew Lewis, director for enterprise, tourism and the environment at Southend Council , neither myself nor my colleagues are doing anything illegal. It wasn't us who told him that, it would have been the police. That would be the same police who were called by APCOA when we started assisting the spy cars with their visibility last week. I have a question for our detractors on here, most of whom I suspect are employed by the council's PR (spin) department. My colleagues and I have answered David Cameron's call to join his "Big Society" and we are holding public servants to account for their actions. So my question to our detractors is this. If we stay within the law and assist with public safety and traffic flow, why are you so keen for us to stop?[/p][/quote]Because there is no place for vigilante thugs on Southend's streets. We don't need a bunch of morons riding around our town deliberately intimidating people going about their lawful business.[/p][/quote]Well said lefty. Wonder if these "vigilantes" would be happy if somebody was to follow them round all day watching their every move, bet they would be the first to moan about it. As for using the masks probably improves their looks, if there is a female driver of the CCTV car would they still use the mask? how would they like somebody to follow their wife/partner whist wearing a face mask, would they find it intimidating or would be be OK for us to do.[/p][/quote]No it was not well said. I have no opinion on the use of spy cars either way but as I see it these bikers are far from "thugs". They are merely excercising their right to ride the road making other road users aware of certain other "road users". Where is the thuggery in that. Also, riding in front of or behind another vehicle, as long as it is legal, is not intimidation. The council and, possibly, the spy car operators (although we only have Andrew Lewis word for that), are just trying to make excuses for the effect of gaining public sympathy. It seems the problem that lies with spy cars is that they cannot judge each circumstance on it's merits. There are many instances where blue badge users, people with punctures, legal loading/unloading etc. have all been ticketed using spy cars because theirs is a "catch all", ask questions later, policy. Whereas, a traffic warden can, as per recommendations, use their discretion at the time of the incident. Nobody is denying that illegal parkers should be punished but should we not be using methods to target the genuinely illegal parkers. If you cast a big net with small holes you will catch far more of those who are innocent than you would if you specifically targeted those who are not.[/p][/quote]There is an appeals procedure.[/p][/quote]So thats guilty until proven innocent then?[/p][/quote]If illegally parked, yes. Don't want a fine, then don't park illegally. I know you are a staunch advocate of such lawbreaking behaviour, but it isn't difficult to understand.[/p][/quote]Do you actually read messages that you comment on? . Qte There are many instances where blue badge users, people with punctures, legal loading/unloading etc. have all been ticketed using spy cars because theirs is a "catch all", ask questions later, policy. Unqte. . These are not lawbreakers, they are innocent. Why should they be forced to make an appeal under a bad council policy that amounts to guilty. until proven innocent? - Or more often pay up to avoid the hassle. Alekhine
  • Score: 4

4:21pm Tue 19 Jun 12

The Cater Wood Creeper says...

if these vigilante types can't find a decent mask they could cut a few holes in a bucket and wear that......
if these vigilante types can't find a decent mask they could cut a few holes in a bucket and wear that...... The Cater Wood Creeper
  • Score: -4

6:07pm Tue 19 Jun 12

lost_scotsman says...

meldrew84 wrote:
My main question for the bikers would be.... at what point did your lives become so boring and pointless you all felt the need to waste your time doing this???

If you are so concerned with public safety and helping others why don't you find a REAL cause to dedicate your time to? Perhaps if you used your intimidating presence around gangs of youths and druggies you could be classed as helpful....

Or if you are determined to parade in the motoring world and keep your presence "legal", perhaps you could spend your time reporting every vehicle you see that is breaking the law and posing a danger to the public ie speeding, using mobile phones whilst driving etc.

I just get the feeling you are a bunch of little bully boys who have had to think up a new way to make your point regarding parking tickets, it's all too easy to intimidate one traffic warden on foot and drive off before you can be reprimanded, but how do you tackle a car that you can't threaten and argue with?? Then one of you "geniuses" thought up the hells angels reject society....

Well clap clap guys, aren't we clever little boys then XD
Best comment so far.
[quote][p][bold]meldrew84[/bold] wrote: My main question for the bikers would be.... at what point did your lives become so boring and pointless you all felt the need to waste your time doing this??? If you are so concerned with public safety and helping others why don't you find a REAL cause to dedicate your time to? Perhaps if you used your intimidating presence around gangs of youths and druggies you could be classed as helpful.... Or if you are determined to parade in the motoring world and keep your presence "legal", perhaps you could spend your time reporting every vehicle you see that is breaking the law and posing a danger to the public ie speeding, using mobile phones whilst driving etc. I just get the feeling you are a bunch of little bully boys who have had to think up a new way to make your point regarding parking tickets, it's all too easy to intimidate one traffic warden on foot and drive off before you can be reprimanded, but how do you tackle a car that you can't threaten and argue with?? Then one of you "geniuses" thought up the hells angels reject society.... Well clap clap guys, aren't we clever little boys then XD[/p][/quote]Best comment so far. lost_scotsman
  • Score: 0

11:05pm Tue 19 Jun 12

Royston@SS9 says...

I have read this thread with interest and whereas i dont necessarily condone vigilante action I neither accept that the Spy cars are a sensible method of increasing road safety in our area. I will share my recent experiences and would be interested in feedback, no matter which side of the fence you sit on.
At the south end of Flemming Ave nr A13 at West Leigh Schools there is a cobbled drive area long enough for three cars. Some parents at pick up time have been parking there (it is currently a fenced off building site so no access issues). The cars are completely off the road and not technically on the pavement. There is enough room for a pram to easily pass safely on the pavement side. A spy car has, on at least two occasions taken to parking ON DOUBLE YELLOW LINES opposite throughout school leaving period, near to the junction and hence forcing vehicles travelling toward London road to move into the opposite carriageway thus creating an obvious hazard along with blocking the sight line of those pedestrians trying to cross usually with primary school children in tow!! (I walk with my daughter so have no vested interest other than road safety, and have not parked there or ever been issued a ticket, before you ask!). I was somewhat disbelieving of what I saw and the anger of fellow pedestrians passing by prompted me to knock on the window of the Spy Car and ask "Why on earth are you parked on the double yellow lines, you are creating more of a hazard than the one you are trying to prevent?" The driver wound down the window no more than an inch, grinned and stated "Because I can". I took out my phone and photo'ed the car with reg no. from behind as proof (which i still have) and his only response was to part wind down the window again and sarcastically say "why don't you take one of the front as well while you're there?!" Somewhat antagonistic I thought at the time. I was at no time anything less than polite and completely non-aggressive. I walked off with the feeling that they were only there because a few drivers had probably, at worst, exploited a loop-hole, and they sniffed a chance of some revenue and to hell with everyone elses safety by their own inconsiderate and frankly stupid positioning. They were there at least 20 minutes..why could they not take a picture and leave promptly? Their anti-social actions have certainly not endeared their cause to the users of that area and if this is the way their 'above the law' attitude is conveyed elsewhere i can see why others are (rightly or wrongly) making a stand!!
I have read this thread with interest and whereas i dont necessarily condone vigilante action I neither accept that the Spy cars are a sensible method of increasing road safety in our area. I will share my recent experiences and would be interested in feedback, no matter which side of the fence you sit on. At the south end of Flemming Ave nr A13 at West Leigh Schools there is a cobbled drive area long enough for three cars. Some parents at pick up time have been parking there (it is currently a fenced off building site so no access issues). The cars are completely off the road and not technically on the pavement. There is enough room for a pram to easily pass safely on the pavement side. A spy car has, on at least two occasions taken to parking ON DOUBLE YELLOW LINES opposite throughout school leaving period, near to the junction and hence forcing vehicles travelling toward London road to move into the opposite carriageway thus creating an obvious hazard along with blocking the sight line of those pedestrians trying to cross usually with primary school children in tow!! (I walk with my daughter so have no vested interest other than road safety, and have not parked there or ever been issued a ticket, before you ask!). I was somewhat disbelieving of what I saw and the anger of fellow pedestrians passing by prompted me to knock on the window of the Spy Car and ask "Why on earth are you parked on the double yellow lines, you are creating more of a hazard than the one you are trying to prevent?" The driver wound down the window no more than an inch, grinned and stated "Because I can". I took out my phone and photo'ed the car with reg no. from behind as proof (which i still have) and his only response was to part wind down the window again and sarcastically say "why don't you take one of the front as well while you're there?!" Somewhat antagonistic I thought at the time. I was at no time anything less than polite and completely non-aggressive. I walked off with the feeling that they were only there because a few drivers had probably, at worst, exploited a loop-hole, and they sniffed a chance of some revenue and to hell with everyone elses safety by their own inconsiderate and frankly stupid positioning. They were there at least 20 minutes..why could they not take a picture and leave promptly? Their anti-social actions have certainly not endeared their cause to the users of that area and if this is the way their 'above the law' attitude is conveyed elsewhere i can see why others are (rightly or wrongly) making a stand!! Royston@SS9
  • Score: 1

1:37am Wed 20 Jun 12

emcee says...

Royston@SS9 wrote:
I have read this thread with interest and whereas i dont necessarily condone vigilante action I neither accept that the Spy cars are a sensible method of increasing road safety in our area. I will share my recent experiences and would be interested in feedback, no matter which side of the fence you sit on.
At the south end of Flemming Ave nr A13 at West Leigh Schools there is a cobbled drive area long enough for three cars. Some parents at pick up time have been parking there (it is currently a fenced off building site so no access issues). The cars are completely off the road and not technically on the pavement. There is enough room for a pram to easily pass safely on the pavement side. A spy car has, on at least two occasions taken to parking ON DOUBLE YELLOW LINES opposite throughout school leaving period, near to the junction and hence forcing vehicles travelling toward London road to move into the opposite carriageway thus creating an obvious hazard along with blocking the sight line of those pedestrians trying to cross usually with primary school children in tow!! (I walk with my daughter so have no vested interest other than road safety, and have not parked there or ever been issued a ticket, before you ask!). I was somewhat disbelieving of what I saw and the anger of fellow pedestrians passing by prompted me to knock on the window of the Spy Car and ask "Why on earth are you parked on the double yellow lines, you are creating more of a hazard than the one you are trying to prevent?" The driver wound down the window no more than an inch, grinned and stated "Because I can". I took out my phone and photo'ed the car with reg no. from behind as proof (which i still have) and his only response was to part wind down the window again and sarcastically say "why don't you take one of the front as well while you're there?!" Somewhat antagonistic I thought at the time. I was at no time anything less than polite and completely non-aggressive. I walked off with the feeling that they were only there because a few drivers had probably, at worst, exploited a loop-hole, and they sniffed a chance of some revenue and to hell with everyone elses safety by their own inconsiderate and frankly stupid positioning. They were there at least 20 minutes..why could they not take a picture and leave promptly? Their anti-social actions have certainly not endeared their cause to the users of that area and if this is the way their 'above the law' attitude is conveyed elsewhere i can see why others are (rightly or wrongly) making a stand!!
If the car was, indeed, causing a hazard then the police should really have been called. I believe these spy cars can park on double yellows but only for the purpose of obtaining evidence of illegal parking. However, they cannot park anywhere if it obstructs traffic or causes a hazard. Police have been known to move on the CCTV cars for parking in hazardous situations.
[quote][p][bold]Royston@SS9[/bold] wrote: I have read this thread with interest and whereas i dont necessarily condone vigilante action I neither accept that the Spy cars are a sensible method of increasing road safety in our area. I will share my recent experiences and would be interested in feedback, no matter which side of the fence you sit on. At the south end of Flemming Ave nr A13 at West Leigh Schools there is a cobbled drive area long enough for three cars. Some parents at pick up time have been parking there (it is currently a fenced off building site so no access issues). The cars are completely off the road and not technically on the pavement. There is enough room for a pram to easily pass safely on the pavement side. A spy car has, on at least two occasions taken to parking ON DOUBLE YELLOW LINES opposite throughout school leaving period, near to the junction and hence forcing vehicles travelling toward London road to move into the opposite carriageway thus creating an obvious hazard along with blocking the sight line of those pedestrians trying to cross usually with primary school children in tow!! (I walk with my daughter so have no vested interest other than road safety, and have not parked there or ever been issued a ticket, before you ask!). I was somewhat disbelieving of what I saw and the anger of fellow pedestrians passing by prompted me to knock on the window of the Spy Car and ask "Why on earth are you parked on the double yellow lines, you are creating more of a hazard than the one you are trying to prevent?" The driver wound down the window no more than an inch, grinned and stated "Because I can". I took out my phone and photo'ed the car with reg no. from behind as proof (which i still have) and his only response was to part wind down the window again and sarcastically say "why don't you take one of the front as well while you're there?!" Somewhat antagonistic I thought at the time. I was at no time anything less than polite and completely non-aggressive. I walked off with the feeling that they were only there because a few drivers had probably, at worst, exploited a loop-hole, and they sniffed a chance of some revenue and to hell with everyone elses safety by their own inconsiderate and frankly stupid positioning. They were there at least 20 minutes..why could they not take a picture and leave promptly? Their anti-social actions have certainly not endeared their cause to the users of that area and if this is the way their 'above the law' attitude is conveyed elsewhere i can see why others are (rightly or wrongly) making a stand!![/p][/quote]If the car was, indeed, causing a hazard then the police should really have been called. I believe these spy cars can park on double yellows but only for the purpose of obtaining evidence of illegal parking. However, they cannot park anywhere if it obstructs traffic or causes a hazard. Police have been known to move on the CCTV cars for parking in hazardous situations. emcee
  • Score: 0

11:06am Wed 20 Jun 12

Joe Hune says...

Nigel Wise wrote:
Lefty These so called 'safety' cars were responsible for running down a child in Southend: http://www.echo-news .co.uk/news/9178252. Young_boy_hit_by_CCT V_car_on_Southend_se afront/ Therefore it is YOU that 'supports lawbreaking.' 'Lawbreaking' is something that these vehicles do on a regular basis : http://www.echo-news .co.uk/news/local_ne ws/southend/9659544. Southend_man_s_landm ark_spy_car_victory/ The issuing of tickets by the use of these vehicles in areas where CEO's can freely and easily patrol on foot is against the statutory guidance which Authorities must have regard to. Clearly in Southend there is no regard to this. In Richmond upon Thames it was decided that the use of these vehicles was not necessary. They were removed from our roads: http://cabnet.richmo nd.gov.uk/documents/ s29394/Item%2012%20- %20Fair%20Parking%20 Review.pdf We have had a 'Fair Parking' enforcement policy here since that time. There have been no reported incidents of any traffic problems or saftey events since this was done over a year ago. Businesses are now recovering. Lord True's policy of 'Fair Parking' and working with small businesses to encourage vibrant local shopping streets has now started to bear fruit. Prior to this the 'draconian enforcement' by these 'spy car' vehicles drove some shopkeepers and small business to the wall. Refer to this footage at post # 7 at 1:40 onwards: http://notomob.co.uk /discussions/index.p hp/topic,1281.msg107 18/topicseen.html#ms g10718 It will be necessary to copy and paste the above links into your browser.
Try and get your facts right!

The Richmond CCTV cars were removed because they were not registered with the DfT which is a legal requirement, so they had to pay back over a million pounds in illigal fines. We have been assured by Southend Council that these cars are registered.

If you read the comments from the article where the boy on the seafront was knocked over you will see that he ran out from between 2 vans, the CCTV vehicle was not speeding and the driver was not prosecuted, so NO law breaking took place!

Read your own statement and I quote 'statutory guidance'. The clue is in the second word, it's guidance and not law, so you are wrong with your so called facts again.

These CCTV cars are paid to do a job and they should be allowed to get on with it. My daughters school has been far better since the cars started visiting and I can also get on a bus without walking out in to the road.

As far as I'm concerned, it was a bold move by the Council and it's working!
[quote][p][bold]Nigel Wise[/bold] wrote: Lefty These so called 'safety' cars were responsible for running down a child in Southend: http://www.echo-news .co.uk/news/9178252. Young_boy_hit_by_CCT V_car_on_Southend_se afront/ Therefore it is YOU that 'supports lawbreaking.' 'Lawbreaking' is something that these vehicles do on a regular basis : http://www.echo-news .co.uk/news/local_ne ws/southend/9659544. Southend_man_s_landm ark_spy_car_victory/ The issuing of tickets by the use of these vehicles in areas where CEO's can freely and easily patrol on foot is against the statutory guidance which Authorities must have regard to. Clearly in Southend there is no regard to this. In Richmond upon Thames it was decided that the use of these vehicles was not necessary. They were removed from our roads: http://cabnet.richmo nd.gov.uk/documents/ s29394/Item%2012%20- %20Fair%20Parking%20 Review.pdf We have had a 'Fair Parking' enforcement policy here since that time. There have been no reported incidents of any traffic problems or saftey events since this was done over a year ago. Businesses are now recovering. Lord True's policy of 'Fair Parking' and working with small businesses to encourage vibrant local shopping streets has now started to bear fruit. Prior to this the 'draconian enforcement' by these 'spy car' vehicles drove some shopkeepers and small business to the wall. Refer to this footage at post # 7 at 1:40 onwards: http://notomob.co.uk /discussions/index.p hp/topic,1281.msg107 18/topicseen.html#ms g10718 It will be necessary to copy and paste the above links into your browser.[/p][/quote]Try and get your facts right! The Richmond CCTV cars were removed because they were not registered with the DfT which is a legal requirement, so they had to pay back over a million pounds in illigal fines. We have been assured by Southend Council that these cars are registered. If you read the comments from the article where the boy on the seafront was knocked over you will see that he ran out from between 2 vans, the CCTV vehicle was not speeding and the driver was not prosecuted, so NO law breaking took place! Read your own statement and I quote 'statutory guidance'. The clue is in the second word, it's guidance and not law, so you are wrong with your so called facts again. These CCTV cars are paid to do a job and they should be allowed to get on with it. My daughters school has been far better since the cars started visiting and I can also get on a bus without walking out in to the road. As far as I'm concerned, it was a bold move by the Council and it's working! Joe Hune
  • Score: 1

11:18am Wed 20 Jun 12

bazaarhorse says...

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.
Do you post your comments to annoy people ? all your scores are negative, they always are. We know how anti car and pro bike you are, perhaps you could concentrate more on your cyclists, I see more law breakers on bikes every day than car drivers. This morning between Shoebury and Southend town center counted 14 cyclists, not one of them on the road but all on the footpaths ? and how about cyclists stopping traffic on pedestrian crossings so they can ride their bikes across ? I for one will not stop for people on bikes on cross walks, red or green.
[quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.[/p][/quote]Do you post your comments to annoy people ? all your scores are negative, they always are. We know how anti car and pro bike you are, perhaps you could concentrate more on your cyclists, I see more law breakers on bikes every day than car drivers. This morning between Shoebury and Southend town center counted 14 cyclists, not one of them on the road but all on the footpaths ? and how about cyclists stopping traffic on pedestrian crossings so they can ride their bikes across ? I for one will not stop for people on bikes on cross walks, red or green. bazaarhorse
  • Score: 2

11:57am Wed 20 Jun 12

Joe Hune says...

meldrew84 wrote:
My main question for the bikers would be.... at what point did your lives become so boring and pointless you all felt the need to waste your time doing this??? If you are so concerned with public safety and helping others why don't you find a REAL cause to dedicate your time to? Perhaps if you used your intimidating presence around gangs of youths and druggies you could be classed as helpful.... Or if you are determined to parade in the motoring world and keep your presence "legal", perhaps you could spend your time reporting every vehicle you see that is breaking the law and posing a danger to the public ie speeding, using mobile phones whilst driving etc. I just get the feeling you are a bunch of little bully boys who have had to think up a new way to make your point regarding parking tickets, it's all too easy to intimidate one traffic warden on foot and drive off before you can be reprimanded, but how do you tackle a car that you can't threaten and argue with?? Then one of you "geniuses" thought up the hells angels reject society.... Well clap clap guys, aren't we clever little boys then XD
You have said it all, WELL DONE!
[quote][p][bold]meldrew84[/bold] wrote: My main question for the bikers would be.... at what point did your lives become so boring and pointless you all felt the need to waste your time doing this??? If you are so concerned with public safety and helping others why don't you find a REAL cause to dedicate your time to? Perhaps if you used your intimidating presence around gangs of youths and druggies you could be classed as helpful.... Or if you are determined to parade in the motoring world and keep your presence "legal", perhaps you could spend your time reporting every vehicle you see that is breaking the law and posing a danger to the public ie speeding, using mobile phones whilst driving etc. I just get the feeling you are a bunch of little bully boys who have had to think up a new way to make your point regarding parking tickets, it's all too easy to intimidate one traffic warden on foot and drive off before you can be reprimanded, but how do you tackle a car that you can't threaten and argue with?? Then one of you "geniuses" thought up the hells angels reject society.... Well clap clap guys, aren't we clever little boys then XD[/p][/quote]You have said it all, WELL DONE! Joe Hune
  • Score: 1

12:35pm Wed 20 Jun 12

Joe Hune says...

I would assume The Bald Eagle an KusariNinja are from the protest group as they seem to have the information on who is who in the organisation.

You are entitled to protest, you are correct in what you say that you are encouraging people to not park where they shouldn't which again I don't have an issue with, but what does concern me looking at the videos on youtube is you are sometimes videoing the employees of these companies that are just doing a job to pay their bills.

Your focus should be the local Council and the parking contractor, not the employees and that's where you will lose some support.

I agree with the spy cars in Southend, but I also understand that some don't which includes your group.
I would assume The Bald Eagle an KusariNinja are from the protest group as they seem to have the information on who is who in the organisation. You are entitled to protest, you are correct in what you say that you are encouraging people to not park where they shouldn't which again I don't have an issue with, but what does concern me looking at the videos on youtube is you are sometimes videoing the employees of these companies that are just doing a job to pay their bills. Your focus should be the local Council and the parking contractor, not the employees and that's where you will lose some support. I agree with the spy cars in Southend, but I also understand that some don't which includes your group. Joe Hune
  • Score: 0

12:58pm Wed 20 Jun 12

Lefty Cyclist Type says...

bazaarhorse wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.
Do you post your comments to annoy people ? all your scores are negative, they always are. We know how anti car and pro bike you are, perhaps you could concentrate more on your cyclists, I see more law breakers on bikes every day than car drivers. This morning between Shoebury and Southend town center counted 14 cyclists, not one of them on the road but all on the footpaths ? and how about cyclists stopping traffic on pedestrian crossings so they can ride their bikes across ? I for one will not stop for people on bikes on cross walks, red or green.
Are you on medication of some kind? There are no 'scores' on this website.
[quote][p][bold]bazaarhorse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.[/p][/quote]Do you post your comments to annoy people ? all your scores are negative, they always are. We know how anti car and pro bike you are, perhaps you could concentrate more on your cyclists, I see more law breakers on bikes every day than car drivers. This morning between Shoebury and Southend town center counted 14 cyclists, not one of them on the road but all on the footpaths ? and how about cyclists stopping traffic on pedestrian crossings so they can ride their bikes across ? I for one will not stop for people on bikes on cross walks, red or green.[/p][/quote]Are you on medication of some kind? There are no 'scores' on this website. Lefty Cyclist Type
  • Score: -2

2:03pm Wed 20 Jun 12

emcee says...

Joe Hune wrote:
I would assume The Bald Eagle an KusariNinja are from the protest group as they seem to have the information on who is who in the organisation.

You are entitled to protest, you are correct in what you say that you are encouraging people to not park where they shouldn't which again I don't have an issue with, but what does concern me looking at the videos on youtube is you are sometimes videoing the employees of these companies that are just doing a job to pay their bills.

Your focus should be the local Council and the parking contractor, not the employees and that's where you will lose some support.

I agree with the spy cars in Southend, but I also understand that some don't which includes your group.
But it is often the employees who are the ones who do not follow the their employers or council guidleines or even the law and that is half the problem.
[quote][p][bold]Joe Hune[/bold] wrote: I would assume The Bald Eagle an KusariNinja are from the protest group as they seem to have the information on who is who in the organisation. You are entitled to protest, you are correct in what you say that you are encouraging people to not park where they shouldn't which again I don't have an issue with, but what does concern me looking at the videos on youtube is you are sometimes videoing the employees of these companies that are just doing a job to pay their bills. Your focus should be the local Council and the parking contractor, not the employees and that's where you will lose some support. I agree with the spy cars in Southend, but I also understand that some don't which includes your group.[/p][/quote]But it is often the employees who are the ones who do not follow the their employers or council guidleines or even the law and that is half the problem. emcee
  • Score: 0

4:38pm Wed 20 Jun 12

meldrew84 says...

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
bazaarhorse wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.
Do you post your comments to annoy people ? all your scores are negative, they always are. We know how anti car and pro bike you are, perhaps you could concentrate more on your cyclists, I see more law breakers on bikes every day than car drivers. This morning between Shoebury and Southend town center counted 14 cyclists, not one of them on the road but all on the footpaths ? and how about cyclists stopping traffic on pedestrian crossings so they can ride their bikes across ? I for one will not stop for people on bikes on cross walks, red or green.
Are you on medication of some kind? There are no 'scores' on this website.
I'll assume yours hasn't changed to the 'social networking' style layout then, people can now like and dislike comments... which appears to be leading to some childish popularity contest in which people are not making comments based on real opinion, but instead based on how many people they can get to like their comments.

I really wouldn't worry whether you have "negative" scores, the fact is you make YOUR opinion based on YOUR views, whether people agree with them or not.... It's not about popularity
[quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bazaarhorse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.[/p][/quote]Do you post your comments to annoy people ? all your scores are negative, they always are. We know how anti car and pro bike you are, perhaps you could concentrate more on your cyclists, I see more law breakers on bikes every day than car drivers. This morning between Shoebury and Southend town center counted 14 cyclists, not one of them on the road but all on the footpaths ? and how about cyclists stopping traffic on pedestrian crossings so they can ride their bikes across ? I for one will not stop for people on bikes on cross walks, red or green.[/p][/quote]Are you on medication of some kind? There are no 'scores' on this website.[/p][/quote]I'll assume yours hasn't changed to the 'social networking' style layout then, people can now like and dislike comments... which appears to be leading to some childish popularity contest in which people are not making comments based on real opinion, but instead based on how many people they can get to like their comments. I really wouldn't worry whether you have "negative" scores, the fact is you make YOUR opinion based on YOUR views, whether people agree with them or not.... It's not about popularity meldrew84
  • Score: -1

4:57pm Wed 20 Jun 12

j-w says...

the scores seem to come and go, at home in the evening I have a different comment layout, all very weird!
the scores seem to come and go, at home in the evening I have a different comment layout, all very weird! j-w
  • Score: 2

5:06pm Wed 20 Jun 12

Lefty Cyclist Type says...

meldrew84 wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
bazaarhorse wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.
Do you post your comments to annoy people ? all your scores are negative, they always are. We know how anti car and pro bike you are, perhaps you could concentrate more on your cyclists, I see more law breakers on bikes every day than car drivers. This morning between Shoebury and Southend town center counted 14 cyclists, not one of them on the road but all on the footpaths ? and how about cyclists stopping traffic on pedestrian crossings so they can ride their bikes across ? I for one will not stop for people on bikes on cross walks, red or green.
Are you on medication of some kind? There are no 'scores' on this website.
I'll assume yours hasn't changed to the 'social networking' style layout then, people can now like and dislike comments... which appears to be leading to some childish popularity contest in which people are not making comments based on real opinion, but instead based on how many people they can get to like their comments.

I really wouldn't worry whether you have "negative" scores, the fact is you make YOUR opinion based on YOUR views, whether people agree with them or not.... It's not about popularity
Ah I've seen this on other websites. I've found that the posts that get the biggest negative reactions tend to be those that are true. People don't like the truth.
[quote][p][bold]meldrew84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bazaarhorse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.[/p][/quote]Do you post your comments to annoy people ? all your scores are negative, they always are. We know how anti car and pro bike you are, perhaps you could concentrate more on your cyclists, I see more law breakers on bikes every day than car drivers. This morning between Shoebury and Southend town center counted 14 cyclists, not one of them on the road but all on the footpaths ? and how about cyclists stopping traffic on pedestrian crossings so they can ride their bikes across ? I for one will not stop for people on bikes on cross walks, red or green.[/p][/quote]Are you on medication of some kind? There are no 'scores' on this website.[/p][/quote]I'll assume yours hasn't changed to the 'social networking' style layout then, people can now like and dislike comments... which appears to be leading to some childish popularity contest in which people are not making comments based on real opinion, but instead based on how many people they can get to like their comments. I really wouldn't worry whether you have "negative" scores, the fact is you make YOUR opinion based on YOUR views, whether people agree with them or not.... It's not about popularity[/p][/quote]Ah I've seen this on other websites. I've found that the posts that get the biggest negative reactions tend to be those that are true. People don't like the truth. Lefty Cyclist Type
  • Score: -3

5:20pm Wed 20 Jun 12

Joe Hune says...

emcee wrote:
Joe Hune wrote: I would assume The Bald Eagle an KusariNinja are from the protest group as they seem to have the information on who is who in the organisation. You are entitled to protest, you are correct in what you say that you are encouraging people to not park where they shouldn't which again I don't have an issue with, but what does concern me looking at the videos on youtube is you are sometimes videoing the employees of these companies that are just doing a job to pay their bills. Your focus should be the local Council and the parking contractor, not the employees and that's where you will lose some support. I agree with the spy cars in Southend, but I also understand that some don't which includes your group.
But it is often the employees who are the ones who do not follow the their employers or council guidleines or even the law and that is half the problem.
If it is the employees then it is up to APCOA or the Council to take action, not a bunch out of town motorbike riders!

People can't just take the law in to their own hands against the employee!

Let these bikers pressure the Council as APCOA only take instruction from them anyway, but the employees are just doing a job, why intimidate them?
[quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Hune[/bold] wrote: I would assume The Bald Eagle an KusariNinja are from the protest group as they seem to have the information on who is who in the organisation. You are entitled to protest, you are correct in what you say that you are encouraging people to not park where they shouldn't which again I don't have an issue with, but what does concern me looking at the videos on youtube is you are sometimes videoing the employees of these companies that are just doing a job to pay their bills. Your focus should be the local Council and the parking contractor, not the employees and that's where you will lose some support. I agree with the spy cars in Southend, but I also understand that some don't which includes your group.[/p][/quote]But it is often the employees who are the ones who do not follow the their employers or council guidleines or even the law and that is half the problem.[/p][/quote]If it is the employees then it is up to APCOA or the Council to take action, not a bunch out of town motorbike riders! People can't just take the law in to their own hands against the employee! Let these bikers pressure the Council as APCOA only take instruction from them anyway, but the employees are just doing a job, why intimidate them? Joe Hune
  • Score: 0

5:23pm Wed 20 Jun 12

meldrew84 says...

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
meldrew84 wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
bazaarhorse wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.
Do you post your comments to annoy people ? all your scores are negative, they always are. We know how anti car and pro bike you are, perhaps you could concentrate more on your cyclists, I see more law breakers on bikes every day than car drivers. This morning between Shoebury and Southend town center counted 14 cyclists, not one of them on the road but all on the footpaths ? and how about cyclists stopping traffic on pedestrian crossings so they can ride their bikes across ? I for one will not stop for people on bikes on cross walks, red or green.
Are you on medication of some kind? There are no 'scores' on this website.
I'll assume yours hasn't changed to the 'social networking' style layout then, people can now like and dislike comments... which appears to be leading to some childish popularity contest in which people are not making comments based on real opinion, but instead based on how many people they can get to like their comments.

I really wouldn't worry whether you have "negative" scores, the fact is you make YOUR opinion based on YOUR views, whether people agree with them or not.... It's not about popularity
Ah I've seen this on other websites. I've found that the posts that get the biggest negative reactions tend to be those that are true. People don't like the truth.
I'd imagine every person who has ever received a parking ticket is voting against you, so i guess you don't stand a chance! lol. Lucky the votes mean nothing really.
[quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]meldrew84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bazaarhorse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.[/p][/quote]Do you post your comments to annoy people ? all your scores are negative, they always are. We know how anti car and pro bike you are, perhaps you could concentrate more on your cyclists, I see more law breakers on bikes every day than car drivers. This morning between Shoebury and Southend town center counted 14 cyclists, not one of them on the road but all on the footpaths ? and how about cyclists stopping traffic on pedestrian crossings so they can ride their bikes across ? I for one will not stop for people on bikes on cross walks, red or green.[/p][/quote]Are you on medication of some kind? There are no 'scores' on this website.[/p][/quote]I'll assume yours hasn't changed to the 'social networking' style layout then, people can now like and dislike comments... which appears to be leading to some childish popularity contest in which people are not making comments based on real opinion, but instead based on how many people they can get to like their comments. I really wouldn't worry whether you have "negative" scores, the fact is you make YOUR opinion based on YOUR views, whether people agree with them or not.... It's not about popularity[/p][/quote]Ah I've seen this on other websites. I've found that the posts that get the biggest negative reactions tend to be those that are true. People don't like the truth.[/p][/quote]I'd imagine every person who has ever received a parking ticket is voting against you, so i guess you don't stand a chance! lol. Lucky the votes mean nothing really. meldrew84
  • Score: 1

5:24pm Wed 20 Jun 12

meldrew84 says...

j-w wrote:
the scores seem to come and go, at home in the evening I have a different comment layout, all very weird!
Ah well that's good, at least it's not just mine that picks and chooses then.....
[quote][p][bold]j-w[/bold] wrote: the scores seem to come and go, at home in the evening I have a different comment layout, all very weird![/p][/quote]Ah well that's good, at least it's not just mine that picks and chooses then..... meldrew84
  • Score: 2

5:32pm Wed 20 Jun 12

Lefty Cyclist Type says...

meldrew84 wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
meldrew84 wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
bazaarhorse wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.
Do you post your comments to annoy people ? all your scores are negative, they always are. We know how anti car and pro bike you are, perhaps you could concentrate more on your cyclists, I see more law breakers on bikes every day than car drivers. This morning between Shoebury and Southend town center counted 14 cyclists, not one of them on the road but all on the footpaths ? and how about cyclists stopping traffic on pedestrian crossings so they can ride their bikes across ? I for one will not stop for people on bikes on cross walks, red or green.
Are you on medication of some kind? There are no 'scores' on this website.
I'll assume yours hasn't changed to the 'social networking' style layout then, people can now like and dislike comments... which appears to be leading to some childish popularity contest in which people are not making comments based on real opinion, but instead based on how many people they can get to like their comments.

I really wouldn't worry whether you have "negative" scores, the fact is you make YOUR opinion based on YOUR views, whether people agree with them or not.... It's not about popularity
Ah I've seen this on other websites. I've found that the posts that get the biggest negative reactions tend to be those that are true. People don't like the truth.
I'd imagine every person who has ever received a parking ticket is voting against you, so i guess you don't stand a chance! lol. Lucky the votes mean nothing really.
It's actually quite funny, all those disgruntled bad drivers who park illegally clicking their little mouse buttons to give me negative scores, and I can't even see the scores! Haha, that's priceless! :D

To be honest I couldn't give to hoots for scores, my opinions are mine, and no-one on this Earth has the ability to make me change them.
[quote][p][bold]meldrew84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]meldrew84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bazaarhorse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.[/p][/quote]Do you post your comments to annoy people ? all your scores are negative, they always are. We know how anti car and pro bike you are, perhaps you could concentrate more on your cyclists, I see more law breakers on bikes every day than car drivers. This morning between Shoebury and Southend town center counted 14 cyclists, not one of them on the road but all on the footpaths ? and how about cyclists stopping traffic on pedestrian crossings so they can ride their bikes across ? I for one will not stop for people on bikes on cross walks, red or green.[/p][/quote]Are you on medication of some kind? There are no 'scores' on this website.[/p][/quote]I'll assume yours hasn't changed to the 'social networking' style layout then, people can now like and dislike comments... which appears to be leading to some childish popularity contest in which people are not making comments based on real opinion, but instead based on how many people they can get to like their comments. I really wouldn't worry whether you have "negative" scores, the fact is you make YOUR opinion based on YOUR views, whether people agree with them or not.... It's not about popularity[/p][/quote]Ah I've seen this on other websites. I've found that the posts that get the biggest negative reactions tend to be those that are true. People don't like the truth.[/p][/quote]I'd imagine every person who has ever received a parking ticket is voting against you, so i guess you don't stand a chance! lol. Lucky the votes mean nothing really.[/p][/quote]It's actually quite funny, all those disgruntled bad drivers who park illegally clicking their little mouse buttons to give me negative scores, and I can't even see the scores! Haha, that's priceless! :D To be honest I couldn't give to hoots for scores, my opinions are mine, and no-one on this Earth has the ability to make me change them. Lefty Cyclist Type
  • Score: -2

5:37pm Wed 20 Jun 12

meldrew84 says...

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
meldrew84 wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
meldrew84 wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
bazaarhorse wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.
Do you post your comments to annoy people ? all your scores are negative, they always are. We know how anti car and pro bike you are, perhaps you could concentrate more on your cyclists, I see more law breakers on bikes every day than car drivers. This morning between Shoebury and Southend town center counted 14 cyclists, not one of them on the road but all on the footpaths ? and how about cyclists stopping traffic on pedestrian crossings so they can ride their bikes across ? I for one will not stop for people on bikes on cross walks, red or green.
Are you on medication of some kind? There are no 'scores' on this website.
I'll assume yours hasn't changed to the 'social networking' style layout then, people can now like and dislike comments... which appears to be leading to some childish popularity contest in which people are not making comments based on real opinion, but instead based on how many people they can get to like their comments.

I really wouldn't worry whether you have "negative" scores, the fact is you make YOUR opinion based on YOUR views, whether people agree with them or not.... It's not about popularity
Ah I've seen this on other websites. I've found that the posts that get the biggest negative reactions tend to be those that are true. People don't like the truth.
I'd imagine every person who has ever received a parking ticket is voting against you, so i guess you don't stand a chance! lol. Lucky the votes mean nothing really.
It's actually quite funny, all those disgruntled bad drivers who park illegally clicking their little mouse buttons to give me negative scores, and I can't even see the scores! Haha, that's priceless! :D

To be honest I couldn't give to hoots for scores, my opinions are mine, and no-one on this Earth has the ability to make me change them.
Well if it's any consolation, i just liked that comment lol
[quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]meldrew84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]meldrew84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bazaarhorse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.[/p][/quote]Do you post your comments to annoy people ? all your scores are negative, they always are. We know how anti car and pro bike you are, perhaps you could concentrate more on your cyclists, I see more law breakers on bikes every day than car drivers. This morning between Shoebury and Southend town center counted 14 cyclists, not one of them on the road but all on the footpaths ? and how about cyclists stopping traffic on pedestrian crossings so they can ride their bikes across ? I for one will not stop for people on bikes on cross walks, red or green.[/p][/quote]Are you on medication of some kind? There are no 'scores' on this website.[/p][/quote]I'll assume yours hasn't changed to the 'social networking' style layout then, people can now like and dislike comments... which appears to be leading to some childish popularity contest in which people are not making comments based on real opinion, but instead based on how many people they can get to like their comments. I really wouldn't worry whether you have "negative" scores, the fact is you make YOUR opinion based on YOUR views, whether people agree with them or not.... It's not about popularity[/p][/quote]Ah I've seen this on other websites. I've found that the posts that get the biggest negative reactions tend to be those that are true. People don't like the truth.[/p][/quote]I'd imagine every person who has ever received a parking ticket is voting against you, so i guess you don't stand a chance! lol. Lucky the votes mean nothing really.[/p][/quote]It's actually quite funny, all those disgruntled bad drivers who park illegally clicking their little mouse buttons to give me negative scores, and I can't even see the scores! Haha, that's priceless! :D To be honest I couldn't give to hoots for scores, my opinions are mine, and no-one on this Earth has the ability to make me change them.[/p][/quote]Well if it's any consolation, i just liked that comment lol meldrew84
  • Score: 0

8:12pm Wed 20 Jun 12

dodgie1 says...

I think one has to assume that the driver/operators of these cars are not gifted with much in the way of brains and intelligence, otherwise they would be participating in a more demanding ocupation. For this reason, we are witnessing many innocent people being victimised by these awful machines. The lack of brains of the operators means they are unable to decipher whether they them selves are parking in a dangerous or inconsiderate fashion. Their lack of brains means that blue badge holders--genuine loading/unloading persons--and many other instances of reasons why a person is parking in a certain situation, are targetted. Coupled to this lack of intelligence is a certain arrogance which seems to give them a 'bully boy' mentallity. It is just as well they are not in the Police Force.
I think one has to assume that the driver/operators of these cars are not gifted with much in the way of brains and intelligence, otherwise they would be participating in a more demanding ocupation. For this reason, we are witnessing many innocent people being victimised by these awful machines. The lack of brains of the operators means they are unable to decipher whether they them selves are parking in a dangerous or inconsiderate fashion. Their lack of brains means that blue badge holders--genuine loading/unloading persons--and many other instances of reasons why a person is parking in a certain situation, are targetted. Coupled to this lack of intelligence is a certain arrogance which seems to give them a 'bully boy' mentallity. It is just as well they are not in the Police Force. dodgie1
  • Score: 2

8:31pm Wed 20 Jun 12

dodgie1 says...

What I also wanted to say, and this is a very important point, is that in a situation where an explanation is required, one is unable to do just that with the car operators. They have a fairly standard answer 'Well you will have to appeal then', and this conversation is conducted through a 2 inch gap in their side window. Get out of the car? don't be silly, it's not in their rule book. One can only hope with all that sitting, that they suffer from sore arses at the end of the day!
What I also wanted to say, and this is a very important point, is that in a situation where an explanation is required, one is unable to do just that with the car operators. They have a fairly standard answer 'Well you will have to appeal then', and this conversation is conducted through a 2 inch gap in their side window. Get out of the car? don't be silly, it's not in their rule book. One can only hope with all that sitting, that they suffer from sore arses at the end of the day! dodgie1
  • Score: 2

8:43pm Wed 20 Jun 12

emcee says...

Joe Hune wrote:
emcee wrote:
Joe Hune wrote: I would assume The Bald Eagle an KusariNinja are from the protest group as they seem to have the information on who is who in the organisation. You are entitled to protest, you are correct in what you say that you are encouraging people to not park where they shouldn't which again I don't have an issue with, but what does concern me looking at the videos on youtube is you are sometimes videoing the employees of these companies that are just doing a job to pay their bills. Your focus should be the local Council and the parking contractor, not the employees and that's where you will lose some support. I agree with the spy cars in Southend, but I also understand that some don't which includes your group.
But it is often the employees who are the ones who do not follow the their employers or council guidleines or even the law and that is half the problem.
If it is the employees then it is up to APCOA or the Council to take action, not a bunch out of town motorbike riders!

People can't just take the law in to their own hands against the employee!

Let these bikers pressure the Council as APCOA only take instruction from them anyway, but the employees are just doing a job, why intimidate them?
Do you thing APCOA or the council will take action on hearsay? The evidence has to be gathered.
I do not see their employers, the council or even the police following them about to make sure they are following procedures and the law correctly. So I do not see any reason why the public should not do it.
Not saying the CCTV operators do fall foul but it is handy to know someone is watching them, should they do so.
[quote][p][bold]Joe Hune[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Hune[/bold] wrote: I would assume The Bald Eagle an KusariNinja are from the protest group as they seem to have the information on who is who in the organisation. You are entitled to protest, you are correct in what you say that you are encouraging people to not park where they shouldn't which again I don't have an issue with, but what does concern me looking at the videos on youtube is you are sometimes videoing the employees of these companies that are just doing a job to pay their bills. Your focus should be the local Council and the parking contractor, not the employees and that's where you will lose some support. I agree with the spy cars in Southend, but I also understand that some don't which includes your group.[/p][/quote]But it is often the employees who are the ones who do not follow the their employers or council guidleines or even the law and that is half the problem.[/p][/quote]If it is the employees then it is up to APCOA or the Council to take action, not a bunch out of town motorbike riders! People can't just take the law in to their own hands against the employee! Let these bikers pressure the Council as APCOA only take instruction from them anyway, but the employees are just doing a job, why intimidate them?[/p][/quote]Do you thing APCOA or the council will take action on hearsay? The evidence has to be gathered. I do not see their employers, the council or even the police following them about to make sure they are following procedures and the law correctly. So I do not see any reason why the public should not do it. Not saying the CCTV operators do fall foul but it is handy to know someone is watching them, should they do so. emcee
  • Score: 0

9:31pm Wed 20 Jun 12

Lefty Cyclist Type says...

dodgie1 wrote:
I think one has to assume that the driver/operators of these cars are not gifted with much in the way of brains and intelligence, otherwise they would be participating in a more demanding ocupation. For this reason, we are witnessing many innocent people being victimised by these awful machines. The lack of brains of the operators means they are unable to decipher whether they them selves are parking in a dangerous or inconsiderate fashion. Their lack of brains means that blue badge holders--genuine loading/unloading persons--and many other instances of reasons why a person is parking in a certain situation, are targetted. Coupled to this lack of intelligence is a certain arrogance which seems to give them a 'bully boy' mentallity. It is just as well they are not in the Police Force.
Or they are intelligent people who have downsized. I know a lot of extremely intelligent, very well qualified people who work as plumbers, joiners, drivers etc.

Don't judge a person by their occupation, you'll come unstuck a lot of the time.
[quote][p][bold]dodgie1[/bold] wrote: I think one has to assume that the driver/operators of these cars are not gifted with much in the way of brains and intelligence, otherwise they would be participating in a more demanding ocupation. For this reason, we are witnessing many innocent people being victimised by these awful machines. The lack of brains of the operators means they are unable to decipher whether they them selves are parking in a dangerous or inconsiderate fashion. Their lack of brains means that blue badge holders--genuine loading/unloading persons--and many other instances of reasons why a person is parking in a certain situation, are targetted. Coupled to this lack of intelligence is a certain arrogance which seems to give them a 'bully boy' mentallity. It is just as well they are not in the Police Force.[/p][/quote]Or they are intelligent people who have downsized. I know a lot of extremely intelligent, very well qualified people who work as plumbers, joiners, drivers etc. Don't judge a person by their occupation, you'll come unstuck a lot of the time. Lefty Cyclist Type
  • Score: 0

9:44pm Wed 20 Jun 12

KusariNinja says...

I have actually seen blue badge holders parking dangerously or in spots where it is considered dangerous, one of my managers actually told a driver once that they were parked in an illegal spot and all he shouted out was "I'm disabled" she explained to him that it was not an excuse for flouting the law and he told her to f**k off! i am forever telling customers not to park where it can be considered dangerous or illegal such as at bus-stops, drop down kerbs etc etc but it's not my fault if they do not listen. But as Joe Hune said I have no brain, so what I say is irrelevant.

I am not from the protest group, I do not attend any meetings or have any discussions with anyone regarding the group. Yes I talk to customers in conversation when they explain that they were caught by the car for dropping off relatives or something else trivial which did not warrent a fine but just because I like to have a report with my customers does not make me part of a protest group.
I have actually seen blue badge holders parking dangerously or in spots where it is considered dangerous, one of my managers actually told a driver once that they were parked in an illegal spot and all he shouted out was "I'm disabled" she explained to him that it was not an excuse for flouting the law and he told her to f**k off! i am forever telling customers not to park where it can be considered dangerous or illegal such as at bus-stops, drop down kerbs etc etc but it's not my fault if they do not listen. But as Joe Hune said I have no brain, so what I say is irrelevant. I am not from the protest group, I do not attend any meetings or have any discussions with anyone regarding the group. Yes I talk to customers in conversation when they explain that they were caught by the car for dropping off relatives or something else trivial which did not warrent a fine but just because I like to have a report with my customers does not make me part of a protest group. KusariNinja
  • Score: 0

9:52pm Wed 20 Jun 12

meldrew84 says...

dodgie1 wrote:
I think one has to assume that the driver/operators of these cars are not gifted with much in the way of brains and intelligence, otherwise they would be participating in a more demanding ocupation. For this reason, we are witnessing many innocent people being victimised by these awful machines. The lack of brains of the operators means they are unable to decipher whether they them selves are parking in a dangerous or inconsiderate fashion. Their lack of brains means that blue badge holders--genuine loading/unloading persons--and many other instances of reasons why a person is parking in a certain situation, are targetted. Coupled to this lack of intelligence is a certain arrogance which seems to give them a 'bully boy' mentallity. It is just as well they are not in the Police Force.
Fair point, but what about the genuine lawbreakers??? From my experience they far out weigh the genuine victims of parking tickets..... So it can equally be said that the drivers/operators of illegally parked vehicles are not gifted with much in the way of brains and intelligence either... Coupled with their lack of intelligence is a certain arrogance which seems to give them their own 'bully boy' mentality in which they are above the law, meaning it's a necessity for wardens and cars to operate.
[quote][p][bold]dodgie1[/bold] wrote: I think one has to assume that the driver/operators of these cars are not gifted with much in the way of brains and intelligence, otherwise they would be participating in a more demanding ocupation. For this reason, we are witnessing many innocent people being victimised by these awful machines. The lack of brains of the operators means they are unable to decipher whether they them selves are parking in a dangerous or inconsiderate fashion. Their lack of brains means that blue badge holders--genuine loading/unloading persons--and many other instances of reasons why a person is parking in a certain situation, are targetted. Coupled to this lack of intelligence is a certain arrogance which seems to give them a 'bully boy' mentallity. It is just as well they are not in the Police Force.[/p][/quote]Fair point, but what about the genuine lawbreakers??? From my experience they far out weigh the genuine victims of parking tickets..... So it can equally be said that the drivers/operators of illegally parked vehicles are not gifted with much in the way of brains and intelligence either... Coupled with their lack of intelligence is a certain arrogance which seems to give them their own 'bully boy' mentality in which they are above the law, meaning it's a necessity for wardens and cars to operate. meldrew84
  • Score: 0

10:07pm Wed 20 Jun 12

emcee says...

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
dodgie1 wrote:
I think one has to assume that the driver/operators of these cars are not gifted with much in the way of brains and intelligence, otherwise they would be participating in a more demanding ocupation. For this reason, we are witnessing many innocent people being victimised by these awful machines. The lack of brains of the operators means they are unable to decipher whether they them selves are parking in a dangerous or inconsiderate fashion. Their lack of brains means that blue badge holders--genuine loading/unloading persons--and many other instances of reasons why a person is parking in a certain situation, are targetted. Coupled to this lack of intelligence is a certain arrogance which seems to give them a 'bully boy' mentallity. It is just as well they are not in the Police Force.
Or they are intelligent people who have downsized. I know a lot of extremely intelligent, very well qualified people who work as plumbers, joiners, drivers etc.

Don't judge a person by their occupation, you'll come unstuck a lot of the time.
Absolutely, 100% agree. Bit of a silly thing to say, dodgie 1.
I know a few highly skilled IT pros, who used to earn a pretty packet. However, because nobody wants highly skilled IT pros these days, because the IT jobs market has been flooded with cheap university graduates, they have been forced into "meanial" work.
It certainly does not make people thick or without brains because the work they do does not "require" a great deal of intelligence.
[quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dodgie1[/bold] wrote: I think one has to assume that the driver/operators of these cars are not gifted with much in the way of brains and intelligence, otherwise they would be participating in a more demanding ocupation. For this reason, we are witnessing many innocent people being victimised by these awful machines. The lack of brains of the operators means they are unable to decipher whether they them selves are parking in a dangerous or inconsiderate fashion. Their lack of brains means that blue badge holders--genuine loading/unloading persons--and many other instances of reasons why a person is parking in a certain situation, are targetted. Coupled to this lack of intelligence is a certain arrogance which seems to give them a 'bully boy' mentallity. It is just as well they are not in the Police Force.[/p][/quote]Or they are intelligent people who have downsized. I know a lot of extremely intelligent, very well qualified people who work as plumbers, joiners, drivers etc. Don't judge a person by their occupation, you'll come unstuck a lot of the time.[/p][/quote]Absolutely, 100% agree. Bit of a silly thing to say, dodgie 1. I know a few highly skilled IT pros, who used to earn a pretty packet. However, because nobody wants highly skilled IT pros these days, because the IT jobs market has been flooded with cheap university graduates, they have been forced into "meanial" work. It certainly does not make people thick or without brains because the work they do does not "require" a great deal of intelligence. emcee
  • Score: 0

10:13pm Wed 20 Jun 12

dodgie1 says...

Well they certainly act as though they are devoid of any intelligence!
Well they certainly act as though they are devoid of any intelligence! dodgie1
  • Score: -1

10:16pm Wed 20 Jun 12

meldrew84 says...

dodgie1 wrote:
Well they certainly act as though they are devoid of any intelligence!
Pretty much like your comments then......
[quote][p][bold]dodgie1[/bold] wrote: Well they certainly act as though they are devoid of any intelligence![/p][/quote]Pretty much like your comments then...... meldrew84
  • Score: 1

10:41pm Wed 20 Jun 12

dodgie1 says...

You know these forums just go to show what a load of selfish and self interested ignorant people there are out there. Why don't most of you grow up and take a balanced view at the parking situations that can arise from just being a normal law abiding citizen. Like for instance a friend of mine that happens to live in a road with a bi monthly waiting restriction during the summer months. No problem with cars parked both sides but the council choose to operate this scheme. His daughter visits him to drop her young baby off and because the parking on the other side of the road is full, she parks on the no waiting side for just a couple of minutes . She causes no problem to any one, is not parking dangerously and not causing an obstruction in any way. Yes the spy car gets her. She is given no chance to explain or move the car, she is done. Another one of the 50 odd bookings for that car on that day! Now you wise no alls out there tell me that she has done wrong. Any that say yes she has well I would like to see what you would say if that had happened to you or your daughter. Had a warden on foot seen the situation, he would have most probably had a conversation and gone on his way. The complete disadvantage with the spy cars is the indiscriminate way they operate. You wise no alls out there just wait until you are picked on by these cars for a minor indiscretion. Just wait until you experience the rude and arrogant attitude of the operators. Just wait until you experience the periscope homed in on you for doing nothing. Just wait until you experience the two operators sitting in their little ivory tower smirking at you. I believe you are unable to enter any argument until you know all the facts on both sides. There are far too many people these days that form a bigoted opinion borne of ignorance.
You know these forums just go to show what a load of selfish and self interested ignorant people there are out there. Why don't most of you grow up and take a balanced view at the parking situations that can arise from just being a normal law abiding citizen. Like for instance a friend of mine that happens to live in a road with a bi monthly waiting restriction during the summer months. No problem with cars parked both sides but the council choose to operate this scheme. His daughter visits him to drop her young baby off and because the parking on the other side of the road is full, she parks on the no waiting side for just a couple of minutes . She causes no problem to any one, is not parking dangerously and not causing an obstruction in any way. Yes the spy car gets her. She is given no chance to explain or move the car, she is done. Another one of the 50 odd bookings for that car on that day! Now you wise no alls out there tell me that she has done wrong. Any that say yes she has well I would like to see what you would say if that had happened to you or your daughter. Had a warden on foot seen the situation, he would have most probably had a conversation and gone on his way. The complete disadvantage with the spy cars is the indiscriminate way they operate. You wise no alls out there just wait until you are picked on by these cars for a minor indiscretion. Just wait until you experience the rude and arrogant attitude of the operators. Just wait until you experience the periscope homed in on you for doing nothing. Just wait until you experience the two operators sitting in their little ivory tower smirking at you. I believe you are unable to enter any argument until you know all the facts on both sides. There are far too many people these days that form a bigoted opinion borne of ignorance. dodgie1
  • Score: 1

10:50pm Wed 20 Jun 12

Lefty Cyclist Type says...

dodgie1 wrote:
You know these forums just go to show what a load of selfish and self interested ignorant people there are out there. Why don't most of you grow up and take a balanced view at the parking situations that can arise from just being a normal law abiding citizen. Like for instance a friend of mine that happens to live in a road with a bi monthly waiting restriction during the summer months. No problem with cars parked both sides but the council choose to operate this scheme. His daughter visits him to drop her young baby off and because the parking on the other side of the road is full, she parks on the no waiting side for just a couple of minutes . She causes no problem to any one, is not parking dangerously and not causing an obstruction in any way. Yes the spy car gets her. She is given no chance to explain or move the car, she is done. Another one of the 50 odd bookings for that car on that day! Now you wise no alls out there tell me that she has done wrong. Any that say yes she has well I would like to see what you would say if that had happened to you or your daughter. Had a warden on foot seen the situation, he would have most probably had a conversation and gone on his way. The complete disadvantage with the spy cars is the indiscriminate way they operate. You wise no alls out there just wait until you are picked on by these cars for a minor indiscretion. Just wait until you experience the rude and arrogant attitude of the operators. Just wait until you experience the periscope homed in on you for doing nothing. Just wait until you experience the two operators sitting in their little ivory tower smirking at you. I believe you are unable to enter any argument until you know all the facts on both sides. There are far too many people these days that form a bigoted opinion borne of ignorance.
Nothing like the completely unbalanced and bigoted views you have expressed towards parking enforcement officers then?
[quote][p][bold]dodgie1[/bold] wrote: You know these forums just go to show what a load of selfish and self interested ignorant people there are out there. Why don't most of you grow up and take a balanced view at the parking situations that can arise from just being a normal law abiding citizen. Like for instance a friend of mine that happens to live in a road with a bi monthly waiting restriction during the summer months. No problem with cars parked both sides but the council choose to operate this scheme. His daughter visits him to drop her young baby off and because the parking on the other side of the road is full, she parks on the no waiting side for just a couple of minutes . She causes no problem to any one, is not parking dangerously and not causing an obstruction in any way. Yes the spy car gets her. She is given no chance to explain or move the car, she is done. Another one of the 50 odd bookings for that car on that day! Now you wise no alls out there tell me that she has done wrong. Any that say yes she has well I would like to see what you would say if that had happened to you or your daughter. Had a warden on foot seen the situation, he would have most probably had a conversation and gone on his way. The complete disadvantage with the spy cars is the indiscriminate way they operate. You wise no alls out there just wait until you are picked on by these cars for a minor indiscretion. Just wait until you experience the rude and arrogant attitude of the operators. Just wait until you experience the periscope homed in on you for doing nothing. Just wait until you experience the two operators sitting in their little ivory tower smirking at you. I believe you are unable to enter any argument until you know all the facts on both sides. There are far too many people these days that form a bigoted opinion borne of ignorance.[/p][/quote]Nothing like the completely unbalanced and bigoted views you have expressed towards parking enforcement officers then? Lefty Cyclist Type
  • Score: -1

10:56pm Wed 20 Jun 12

Lefty Cyclist Type says...

"His daughter visits him to drop her young baby off and because the parking on the other side of the road is full, she parks on the no waiting side for just a couple of minutes ."

She could have found somewhere further away to park and walked to the house. She was lazy, she got a ticket. Tough.
"His daughter visits him to drop her young baby off and because the parking on the other side of the road is full, she parks on the no waiting side for just a couple of minutes ." She could have found somewhere further away to park and walked to the house. She was lazy, she got a ticket. Tough. Lefty Cyclist Type
  • Score: -1

11:05pm Wed 20 Jun 12

dodgie1 says...

Well I suppose most of you are for the Google 'Spy in the Sky'? Mind you if you sun bathe nude in your gardens you have nothing to fear. It can't spot objects under 4 inches.
Well I suppose most of you are for the Google 'Spy in the Sky'? Mind you if you sun bathe nude in your gardens you have nothing to fear. It can't spot objects under 4 inches. dodgie1
  • Score: 1

11:09pm Wed 20 Jun 12

meldrew84 says...

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
"His daughter visits him to drop her young baby off and because the parking on the other side of the road is full, she parks on the no waiting side for just a couple of minutes ."

She could have found somewhere further away to park and walked to the house. She was lazy, she got a ticket. Tough.
Funny how these "victims" are always just parked illegally for a "couple of minutes" whilst "never causing anyone a problem" and these cars conveniently drive past.... hows their luck aye lol. Guess karma doesn't like illegal parking either. Boggles my mind how people can make excuses for blatant disregard of the law, they're probably the same people who think it's ok to break the speed limit as long as they were late for work and no other cars were around xD
[quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: "His daughter visits him to drop her young baby off and because the parking on the other side of the road is full, she parks on the no waiting side for just a couple of minutes ." She could have found somewhere further away to park and walked to the house. She was lazy, she got a ticket. Tough.[/p][/quote]Funny how these "victims" are always just parked illegally for a "couple of minutes" whilst "never causing anyone a problem" and these cars conveniently drive past.... hows their luck aye lol. Guess karma doesn't like illegal parking either. Boggles my mind how people can make excuses for blatant disregard of the law, they're probably the same people who think it's ok to break the speed limit as long as they were late for work and no other cars were around xD meldrew84
  • Score: 0

11:14pm Wed 20 Jun 12

dodgie1 says...

'Leftie cyclist' shows what you know about being a parent then! Not only did she have the baby to drop off but all the other required bits that go with a baby. In fact she is entitled to say she was unloading and that will be her appeal.
'Leftie cyclist' shows what you know about being a parent then! Not only did she have the baby to drop off but all the other required bits that go with a baby. In fact she is entitled to say she was unloading and that will be her appeal. dodgie1
  • Score: 0

11:16pm Wed 20 Jun 12

Lefty Cyclist Type says...

dodgie1 wrote:
Well I suppose most of you are for the Google 'Spy in the Sky'? Mind you if you sun bathe nude in your gardens you have nothing to fear. It can't spot objects under 4 inches.
There is no 'Google spy in the sky'. Google use available satellite and aerial imagery.

Here, you may find this link useful:

http://bit.ly/12k357
[quote][p][bold]dodgie1[/bold] wrote: Well I suppose most of you are for the Google 'Spy in the Sky'? Mind you if you sun bathe nude in your gardens you have nothing to fear. It can't spot objects under 4 inches.[/p][/quote]There is no 'Google spy in the sky'. Google use available satellite and aerial imagery. Here, you may find this link useful: http://bit.ly/12k357 Lefty Cyclist Type
  • Score: -1

11:18pm Wed 20 Jun 12

Lefty Cyclist Type says...

dodgie1 wrote:
'Leftie cyclist' shows what you know about being a parent then! Not only did she have the baby to drop off but all the other required bits that go with a baby. In fact she is entitled to say she was unloading and that will be her appeal.
She could have made more than one trip from car to house.

Still lazy, still tough.
[quote][p][bold]dodgie1[/bold] wrote: 'Leftie cyclist' shows what you know about being a parent then! Not only did she have the baby to drop off but all the other required bits that go with a baby. In fact she is entitled to say she was unloading and that will be her appeal.[/p][/quote]She could have made more than one trip from car to house. Still lazy, still tough. Lefty Cyclist Type
  • Score: -1

11:20pm Wed 20 Jun 12

meldrew84 says...

dodgie1 wrote:
'Leftie cyclist' shows what you know about being a parent then! Not only did she have the baby to drop off but all the other required bits that go with a baby. In fact she is entitled to say she was unloading and that will be her appeal.
So why didn't you go and help her then?! Or is it the spy cars fault you are not much of a gentleman (or gentlewoman)??
[quote][p][bold]dodgie1[/bold] wrote: 'Leftie cyclist' shows what you know about being a parent then! Not only did she have the baby to drop off but all the other required bits that go with a baby. In fact she is entitled to say she was unloading and that will be her appeal.[/p][/quote]So why didn't you go and help her then?! Or is it the spy cars fault you are not much of a gentleman (or gentlewoman)?? meldrew84
  • Score: 0

1:03am Thu 21 Jun 12

heartbeat says...

Royston@SS9 wrote:
I have read this thread with interest and whereas i dont necessarily condone vigilante action I neither accept that the Spy cars are a sensible method of increasing road safety in our area. I will share my recent experiences and would be interested in feedback, no matter which side of the fence you sit on.
At the south end of Flemming Ave nr A13 at West Leigh Schools there is a cobbled drive area long enough for three cars. Some parents at pick up time have been parking there (it is currently a fenced off building site so no access issues). The cars are completely off the road and not technically on the pavement. There is enough room for a pram to easily pass safely on the pavement side. A spy car has, on at least two occasions taken to parking ON DOUBLE YELLOW LINES opposite throughout school leaving period, near to the junction and hence forcing vehicles travelling toward London road to move into the opposite carriageway thus creating an obvious hazard along with blocking the sight line of those pedestrians trying to cross usually with primary school children in tow!! (I walk with my daughter so have no vested interest other than road safety, and have not parked there or ever been issued a ticket, before you ask!). I was somewhat disbelieving of what I saw and the anger of fellow pedestrians passing by prompted me to knock on the window of the Spy Car and ask "Why on earth are you parked on the double yellow lines, you are creating more of a hazard than the one you are trying to prevent?" The driver wound down the window no more than an inch, grinned and stated "Because I can". I took out my phone and photo'ed the car with reg no. from behind as proof (which i still have) and his only response was to part wind down the window again and sarcastically say "why don't you take one of the front as well while you're there?!" Somewhat antagonistic I thought at the time. I was at no time anything less than polite and completely non-aggressive. I walked off with the feeling that they were only there because a few drivers had probably, at worst, exploited a loop-hole, and they sniffed a chance of some revenue and to hell with everyone elses safety by their own inconsiderate and frankly stupid positioning. They were there at least 20 minutes..why could they not take a picture and leave promptly? Their anti-social actions have certainly not endeared their cause to the users of that area and if this is the way their 'above the law' attitude is conveyed elsewhere i can see why others are (rightly or wrongly) making a stand!!
You've hit the nail on the head. It's all about revenue far more than it is about hazardous parking. I know that from roads near me - one hour restricted parking a day (obviously considered safe to park for the other 23 hours a day, so how on earth can safety be the issue?!) - at the appointed hour the vulture cars frequently appear to catch their unfortunate prey. I've never had a ticket so have no personal axe to grind. I wouldnt even care so much if the Council admitted it was all about raising revenue because they are skint - it's the deceit and pretence that it's all about safety and zig-zag lines outside schools that really annoys me. Just how dumb do they think we all are?? Oh yes I suppose they might read Echo forums.
[quote][p][bold]Royston@SS9[/bold] wrote: I have read this thread with interest and whereas i dont necessarily condone vigilante action I neither accept that the Spy cars are a sensible method of increasing road safety in our area. I will share my recent experiences and would be interested in feedback, no matter which side of the fence you sit on. At the south end of Flemming Ave nr A13 at West Leigh Schools there is a cobbled drive area long enough for three cars. Some parents at pick up time have been parking there (it is currently a fenced off building site so no access issues). The cars are completely off the road and not technically on the pavement. There is enough room for a pram to easily pass safely on the pavement side. A spy car has, on at least two occasions taken to parking ON DOUBLE YELLOW LINES opposite throughout school leaving period, near to the junction and hence forcing vehicles travelling toward London road to move into the opposite carriageway thus creating an obvious hazard along with blocking the sight line of those pedestrians trying to cross usually with primary school children in tow!! (I walk with my daughter so have no vested interest other than road safety, and have not parked there or ever been issued a ticket, before you ask!). I was somewhat disbelieving of what I saw and the anger of fellow pedestrians passing by prompted me to knock on the window of the Spy Car and ask "Why on earth are you parked on the double yellow lines, you are creating more of a hazard than the one you are trying to prevent?" The driver wound down the window no more than an inch, grinned and stated "Because I can". I took out my phone and photo'ed the car with reg no. from behind as proof (which i still have) and his only response was to part wind down the window again and sarcastically say "why don't you take one of the front as well while you're there?!" Somewhat antagonistic I thought at the time. I was at no time anything less than polite and completely non-aggressive. I walked off with the feeling that they were only there because a few drivers had probably, at worst, exploited a loop-hole, and they sniffed a chance of some revenue and to hell with everyone elses safety by their own inconsiderate and frankly stupid positioning. They were there at least 20 minutes..why could they not take a picture and leave promptly? Their anti-social actions have certainly not endeared their cause to the users of that area and if this is the way their 'above the law' attitude is conveyed elsewhere i can see why others are (rightly or wrongly) making a stand!![/p][/quote]You've hit the nail on the head. It's all about revenue far more than it is about hazardous parking. I know that from roads near me - one hour restricted parking a day (obviously considered safe to park for the other 23 hours a day, so how on earth can safety be the issue?!) - at the appointed hour the vulture cars frequently appear to catch their unfortunate prey. I've never had a ticket so have no personal axe to grind. I wouldnt even care so much if the Council admitted it was all about raising revenue because they are skint - it's the deceit and pretence that it's all about safety and zig-zag lines outside schools that really annoys me. Just how dumb do they think we all are?? Oh yes I suppose they might read Echo forums. heartbeat
  • Score: 1

1:56am Thu 21 Jun 12

SUFC1906 says...

If these guys on bikes really want to have an effect on stopping these spy cars or getting them scrapped then they should look at the weak link, fuel. Find out what petrol stations the spy cars fill up at & publish a list of the fuel stations letting the public then decide whether or not to use them. Owners or managers of the stations & even oil companies might act to campaign against the spy cars or deny them the option of using their garages. Money talks & oil companies won't want customer boycotts if the spy cars are that unpopular generally.
If these guys on bikes really want to have an effect on stopping these spy cars or getting them scrapped then they should look at the weak link, fuel. Find out what petrol stations the spy cars fill up at & publish a list of the fuel stations letting the public then decide whether or not to use them. Owners or managers of the stations & even oil companies might act to campaign against the spy cars or deny them the option of using their garages. Money talks & oil companies won't want customer boycotts if the spy cars are that unpopular generally. SUFC1906
  • Score: 1

8:07am Thu 21 Jun 12

dodgie1 says...

Mildrew 84 You just go to prove what I have said about knowing the facts. 'So why didn't you go to help her' you said , trying to make me out as an unhelpful person. Well the reason is I wasn't there at the time. Some of you seem to accept that every ticket issued is a rightful one with no fault on the side of the car operators. Why don't you join the real world where you will witness many wrongful things carried out by our Government and Councils. Many tickets issued by the cars are WRONG. That is why the appeal numbers in towns where they use these cars, have shot up. THEY ARE INDISCRIMINATE IN THEIR USE!! They were introduced to sort out dangerous parking and most people would not have a problem with that. The majority of tickets however, are not for dangerous parking. There is something else I would like to bring in to this forum. On the pcn, there is the indication that the lower amount to pay by a certain time before it doubles, is not allowed should the recipient appeal. This is totally misleading and not true. You are still allowed to pay the lower amount if you appeal and lose, provided the lower amount is paid within the designated time after the result of the appeal. The pcn fails to inform of this fact resulting in many people not appealing because of fear of losing the lower price.
Mildrew 84 You just go to prove what I have said about knowing the facts. 'So why didn't you go to help her' you said , trying to make me out as an unhelpful person. Well the reason is I wasn't there at the time. Some of you seem to accept that every ticket issued is a rightful one with no fault on the side of the car operators. Why don't you join the real world where you will witness many wrongful things carried out by our Government and Councils. Many tickets issued by the cars are WRONG. That is why the appeal numbers in towns where they use these cars, have shot up. THEY ARE INDISCRIMINATE IN THEIR USE!! They were introduced to sort out dangerous parking and most people would not have a problem with that. The majority of tickets however, are not for dangerous parking. There is something else I would like to bring in to this forum. On the pcn, there is the indication that the lower amount to pay by a certain time before it doubles, is not allowed should the recipient appeal. This is totally misleading and not true. You are still allowed to pay the lower amount if you appeal and lose, provided the lower amount is paid within the designated time after the result of the appeal. The pcn fails to inform of this fact resulting in many people not appealing because of fear of losing the lower price. dodgie1
  • Score: 0

10:26am Thu 21 Jun 12

meldrew84 says...

dodgie1 wrote:
Mildrew 84 You just go to prove what I have said about knowing the facts. 'So why didn't you go to help her' you said , trying to make me out as an unhelpful person. Well the reason is I wasn't there at the time. Some of you seem to accept that every ticket issued is a rightful one with no fault on the side of the car operators. Why don't you join the real world where you will witness many wrongful things carried out by our Government and Councils. Many tickets issued by the cars are WRONG. That is why the appeal numbers in towns where they use these cars, have shot up. THEY ARE INDISCRIMINATE IN THEIR USE!! They were introduced to sort out dangerous parking and most people would not have a problem with that. The majority of tickets however, are not for dangerous parking. There is something else I would like to bring in to this forum. On the pcn, there is the indication that the lower amount to pay by a certain time before it doubles, is not allowed should the recipient appeal. This is totally misleading and not true. You are still allowed to pay the lower amount if you appeal and lose, provided the lower amount is paid within the designated time after the result of the appeal. The pcn fails to inform of this fact resulting in many people not appealing because of fear of losing the lower price.
I received a parking ticket 2 years ago for parking in a residents bay instead of a public bay, i was unaware that the bay was for residents as it was not clearly marked. The warden was as indiscriminate as a spy car as he/she could have clearly seen the bay was not makred correctly. I contacted westminster council and highlighted my concerns and also sent them a copy of the ticket i had purchased and explained i had parked there as my disabled child had an appointment in the hospital which has no parking of its own and the spot i chose did not have residents markings, they were reasonable and compassionate enough to believe my genuine mistake and quashed the ticket. The point being in my experience if the ticket is genuinely wrongly given the local council will cooperate, the trouble is, everybody who gets a ticket thinks they have received it wrongly.... most of them time, they are given quite rightly, hence the reason not many people bother to appeal because deep down they know they have done wrong, so instead they portray themselves as having been victimised for "stopping for a couple of minutes and causing no-one else a problem".

On another scale, my mother lives in town, she has private parking at the back of her property, several times members of the public have parked on her private property whilst they go shopping... not dangerous, but very rude if you ask me! I live in a small close by the seafront, airshow day there was members of the public visiting the airshow parked in our visitors bays all day and one or two even parked in numbered bays intended for the residents meaning people could not park in their own close for the day! Again, not dangerous, but out of order none the less. In my book they still deserve a ticket! So it's not always about "dangerous" parking is it.
[quote][p][bold]dodgie1[/bold] wrote: Mildrew 84 You just go to prove what I have said about knowing the facts. 'So why didn't you go to help her' you said , trying to make me out as an unhelpful person. Well the reason is I wasn't there at the time. Some of you seem to accept that every ticket issued is a rightful one with no fault on the side of the car operators. Why don't you join the real world where you will witness many wrongful things carried out by our Government and Councils. Many tickets issued by the cars are WRONG. That is why the appeal numbers in towns where they use these cars, have shot up. THEY ARE INDISCRIMINATE IN THEIR USE!! They were introduced to sort out dangerous parking and most people would not have a problem with that. The majority of tickets however, are not for dangerous parking. There is something else I would like to bring in to this forum. On the pcn, there is the indication that the lower amount to pay by a certain time before it doubles, is not allowed should the recipient appeal. This is totally misleading and not true. You are still allowed to pay the lower amount if you appeal and lose, provided the lower amount is paid within the designated time after the result of the appeal. The pcn fails to inform of this fact resulting in many people not appealing because of fear of losing the lower price.[/p][/quote]I received a parking ticket 2 years ago for parking in a residents bay instead of a public bay, i was unaware that the bay was for residents as it was not clearly marked. The warden was as indiscriminate as a spy car as he/she could have clearly seen the bay was not makred correctly. I contacted westminster council and highlighted my concerns and also sent them a copy of the ticket i had purchased and explained i had parked there as my disabled child had an appointment in the hospital which has no parking of its own and the spot i chose did not have residents markings, they were reasonable and compassionate enough to believe my genuine mistake and quashed the ticket. The point being in my experience if the ticket is genuinely wrongly given the local council will cooperate, the trouble is, everybody who gets a ticket thinks they have received it wrongly.... most of them time, they are given quite rightly, hence the reason not many people bother to appeal because deep down they know they have done wrong, so instead they portray themselves as having been victimised for "stopping for a couple of minutes and causing no-one else a problem". On another scale, my mother lives in town, she has private parking at the back of her property, several times members of the public have parked on her private property whilst they go shopping... not dangerous, but very rude if you ask me! I live in a small close by the seafront, airshow day there was members of the public visiting the airshow parked in our visitors bays all day and one or two even parked in numbered bays intended for the residents meaning people could not park in their own close for the day! Again, not dangerous, but out of order none the less. In my book they still deserve a ticket! So it's not always about "dangerous" parking is it. meldrew84
  • Score: 0

12:45pm Thu 21 Jun 12

Joe Hune says...

dodgie1 wrote:
You know these forums just go to show what a load of selfish and self interested ignorant people there are out there. Why don't most of you grow up and take a balanced view at the parking situations that can arise from just being a normal law abiding citizen. Like for instance a friend of mine that happens to live in a road with a bi monthly waiting restriction during the summer months. No problem with cars parked both sides but the council choose to operate this scheme. His daughter visits him to drop her young baby off and because the parking on the other side of the road is full, she parks on the no waiting side for just a couple of minutes . She causes no problem to any one, is not parking dangerously and not causing an obstruction in any way. Yes the spy car gets her. She is given no chance to explain or move the car, she is done. Another one of the 50 odd bookings for that car on that day! Now you wise no alls out there tell me that she has done wrong. Any that say yes she has well I would like to see what you would say if that had happened to you or your daughter. Had a warden on foot seen the situation, he would have most probably had a conversation and gone on his way. The complete disadvantage with the spy cars is the indiscriminate way they operate. You wise no alls out there just wait until you are picked on by these cars for a minor indiscretion. Just wait until you experience the rude and arrogant attitude of the operators. Just wait until you experience the periscope homed in on you for doing nothing. Just wait until you experience the two operators sitting in their little ivory tower smirking at you. I believe you are unable to enter any argument until you know all the facts on both sides. There are far too many people these days that form a bigoted opinion borne of ignorance.
One minute you are giving it large about these people who drive the cars not having any brains and the next minute you are going on about 'bigoted opinion borne of ignorance'!!

WHAT A MUPPET YOU REALLY ARE!!

You don't know these people, you don't know if they are qualified or not, in fact you actually do not know anything about them apart from the job that they do!!

How does the driver of the car know this women hasn't been there all day??

How does he know she has a baby??

How does he know she is visiting?

He will see a vehicle parking illigally and film it for 3 minutes as quoted by some Council official in a previous article. If he doesn't see any movement for 3 minutes yes he has every right to issue the person with a ticket!

Why don't they get out of their cars? Would you if you had to put up with some of the bad mouthed bigoted, ignorant people who live in Southend or comment on this site, because I wouldn't!!

Why do people want foot Wardens? Because they can be intimidated or thretened.

Pathetic people like you who in one comment go on about the drivers not being that gifted and then later on go on about a balanced views.

I see these Wardens walking outside my shop every day and they get crap and abuse all the time. I'm glad they have these cars and don't get out to talk to idiots like you and I just hope that the CCTV car gets you or yours one day as I can't think of anybody else who would deserve it more!
[quote][p][bold]dodgie1[/bold] wrote: You know these forums just go to show what a load of selfish and self interested ignorant people there are out there. Why don't most of you grow up and take a balanced view at the parking situations that can arise from just being a normal law abiding citizen. Like for instance a friend of mine that happens to live in a road with a bi monthly waiting restriction during the summer months. No problem with cars parked both sides but the council choose to operate this scheme. His daughter visits him to drop her young baby off and because the parking on the other side of the road is full, she parks on the no waiting side for just a couple of minutes . She causes no problem to any one, is not parking dangerously and not causing an obstruction in any way. Yes the spy car gets her. She is given no chance to explain or move the car, she is done. Another one of the 50 odd bookings for that car on that day! Now you wise no alls out there tell me that she has done wrong. Any that say yes she has well I would like to see what you would say if that had happened to you or your daughter. Had a warden on foot seen the situation, he would have most probably had a conversation and gone on his way. The complete disadvantage with the spy cars is the indiscriminate way they operate. You wise no alls out there just wait until you are picked on by these cars for a minor indiscretion. Just wait until you experience the rude and arrogant attitude of the operators. Just wait until you experience the periscope homed in on you for doing nothing. Just wait until you experience the two operators sitting in their little ivory tower smirking at you. I believe you are unable to enter any argument until you know all the facts on both sides. There are far too many people these days that form a bigoted opinion borne of ignorance.[/p][/quote]One minute you are giving it large about these people who drive the cars not having any brains and the next minute you are going on about 'bigoted opinion borne of ignorance'!! WHAT A MUPPET YOU REALLY ARE!! You don't know these people, you don't know if they are qualified or not, in fact you actually do not know anything about them apart from the job that they do!! How does the driver of the car know this women hasn't been there all day?? How does he know she has a baby?? How does he know she is visiting? He will see a vehicle parking illigally and film it for 3 minutes as quoted by some Council official in a previous article. If he doesn't see any movement for 3 minutes yes he has every right to issue the person with a ticket! Why don't they get out of their cars? Would you if you had to put up with some of the bad mouthed bigoted, ignorant people who live in Southend or comment on this site, because I wouldn't!! Why do people want foot Wardens? Because they can be intimidated or thretened. Pathetic people like you who in one comment go on about the drivers not being that gifted and then later on go on about a balanced views. I see these Wardens walking outside my shop every day and they get crap and abuse all the time. I'm glad they have these cars and don't get out to talk to idiots like you and I just hope that the CCTV car gets you or yours one day as I can't think of anybody else who would deserve it more! Joe Hune
  • Score: 0

12:55pm Thu 21 Jun 12

Joe Hune says...

heartbeat wrote:
Royston@SS9 wrote: I have read this thread with interest and whereas i dont necessarily condone vigilante action I neither accept that the Spy cars are a sensible method of increasing road safety in our area. I will share my recent experiences and would be interested in feedback, no matter which side of the fence you sit on. At the south end of Flemming Ave nr A13 at West Leigh Schools there is a cobbled drive area long enough for three cars. Some parents at pick up time have been parking there (it is currently a fenced off building site so no access issues). The cars are completely off the road and not technically on the pavement. There is enough room for a pram to easily pass safely on the pavement side. A spy car has, on at least two occasions taken to parking ON DOUBLE YELLOW LINES opposite throughout school leaving period, near to the junction and hence forcing vehicles travelling toward London road to move into the opposite carriageway thus creating an obvious hazard along with blocking the sight line of those pedestrians trying to cross usually with primary school children in tow!! (I walk with my daughter so have no vested interest other than road safety, and have not parked there or ever been issued a ticket, before you ask!). I was somewhat disbelieving of what I saw and the anger of fellow pedestrians passing by prompted me to knock on the window of the Spy Car and ask "Why on earth are you parked on the double yellow lines, you are creating more of a hazard than the one you are trying to prevent?" The driver wound down the window no more than an inch, grinned and stated "Because I can". I took out my phone and photo'ed the car with reg no. from behind as proof (which i still have) and his only response was to part wind down the window again and sarcastically say "why don't you take one of the front as well while you're there?!" Somewhat antagonistic I thought at the time. I was at no time anything less than polite and completely non-aggressive. I walked off with the feeling that they were only there because a few drivers had probably, at worst, exploited a loop-hole, and they sniffed a chance of some revenue and to hell with everyone elses safety by their own inconsiderate and frankly stupid positioning. They were there at least 20 minutes..why could they not take a picture and leave promptly? Their anti-social actions have certainly not endeared their cause to the users of that area and if this is the way their 'above the law' attitude is conveyed elsewhere i can see why others are (rightly or wrongly) making a stand!!
You've hit the nail on the head. It's all about revenue far more than it is about hazardous parking. I know that from roads near me - one hour restricted parking a day (obviously considered safe to park for the other 23 hours a day, so how on earth can safety be the issue?!) - at the appointed hour the vulture cars frequently appear to catch their unfortunate prey. I've never had a ticket so have no personal axe to grind. I wouldnt even care so much if the Council admitted it was all about raising revenue because they are skint - it's the deceit and pretence that it's all about safety and zig-zag lines outside schools that really annoys me. Just how dumb do they think we all are?? Oh yes I suppose they might read Echo forums.
The one hour restrictions are only used to stop all day parking or comuters.

I live near an area where it was flooded by RBS staff parking all day and taking up areas where residents park, by putting in the one hour restriction, it tends to stop this. My daughter has the same thing near her house by Leigh Station, it stops the comuters.

Does this make it about revenue? No, it makes it about the Council helping out the residents!
[quote][p][bold]heartbeat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Royston@SS9[/bold] wrote: I have read this thread with interest and whereas i dont necessarily condone vigilante action I neither accept that the Spy cars are a sensible method of increasing road safety in our area. I will share my recent experiences and would be interested in feedback, no matter which side of the fence you sit on. At the south end of Flemming Ave nr A13 at West Leigh Schools there is a cobbled drive area long enough for three cars. Some parents at pick up time have been parking there (it is currently a fenced off building site so no access issues). The cars are completely off the road and not technically on the pavement. There is enough room for a pram to easily pass safely on the pavement side. A spy car has, on at least two occasions taken to parking ON DOUBLE YELLOW LINES opposite throughout school leaving period, near to the junction and hence forcing vehicles travelling toward London road to move into the opposite carriageway thus creating an obvious hazard along with blocking the sight line of those pedestrians trying to cross usually with primary school children in tow!! (I walk with my daughter so have no vested interest other than road safety, and have not parked there or ever been issued a ticket, before you ask!). I was somewhat disbelieving of what I saw and the anger of fellow pedestrians passing by prompted me to knock on the window of the Spy Car and ask "Why on earth are you parked on the double yellow lines, you are creating more of a hazard than the one you are trying to prevent?" The driver wound down the window no more than an inch, grinned and stated "Because I can". I took out my phone and photo'ed the car with reg no. from behind as proof (which i still have) and his only response was to part wind down the window again and sarcastically say "why don't you take one of the front as well while you're there?!" Somewhat antagonistic I thought at the time. I was at no time anything less than polite and completely non-aggressive. I walked off with the feeling that they were only there because a few drivers had probably, at worst, exploited a loop-hole, and they sniffed a chance of some revenue and to hell with everyone elses safety by their own inconsiderate and frankly stupid positioning. They were there at least 20 minutes..why could they not take a picture and leave promptly? Their anti-social actions have certainly not endeared their cause to the users of that area and if this is the way their 'above the law' attitude is conveyed elsewhere i can see why others are (rightly or wrongly) making a stand!![/p][/quote]You've hit the nail on the head. It's all about revenue far more than it is about hazardous parking. I know that from roads near me - one hour restricted parking a day (obviously considered safe to park for the other 23 hours a day, so how on earth can safety be the issue?!) - at the appointed hour the vulture cars frequently appear to catch their unfortunate prey. I've never had a ticket so have no personal axe to grind. I wouldnt even care so much if the Council admitted it was all about raising revenue because they are skint - it's the deceit and pretence that it's all about safety and zig-zag lines outside schools that really annoys me. Just how dumb do they think we all are?? Oh yes I suppose they might read Echo forums.[/p][/quote]The one hour restrictions are only used to stop all day parking or comuters. I live near an area where it was flooded by RBS staff parking all day and taking up areas where residents park, by putting in the one hour restriction, it tends to stop this. My daughter has the same thing near her house by Leigh Station, it stops the comuters. Does this make it about revenue? No, it makes it about the Council helping out the residents! Joe Hune
  • Score: 0

1:17pm Thu 21 Jun 12

The Bald Eagle says...

119 posts and the keyboard warriors on here are still at it. Did we touch a nerve?

Certain correspondents have made it entirely clear that they do not want the No To Mob to assist with safety and traffic flow in their town. That is their opinion and they are perfectly entitled to it.

The members of the NTM are equally entitled to ignore their opinion (and believe me we will) and go about our lawful business of holding public servants and their employees/contractor
s to account to us (the public they purport to serve) for their actions.

I await the inevitable tirade of uninformed, illogical abuse that will undoubtedly follow, but to quote Lefty Cyclist from one of his posts above, if you don't like it, "Tough".
119 posts and the keyboard warriors on here are still at it. Did we touch a nerve? Certain correspondents have made it entirely clear that they do not want the No To Mob to assist with safety and traffic flow in their town. That is their opinion and they are perfectly entitled to it. The members of the NTM are equally entitled to ignore their opinion (and believe me we will) and go about our lawful business of holding public servants and their employees/contractor s to account to us (the public they purport to serve) for their actions. I await the inevitable tirade of uninformed, illogical abuse that will undoubtedly follow, but to quote Lefty Cyclist from one of his posts above, if you don't like it, "Tough". The Bald Eagle
  • Score: 1

1:24pm Thu 21 Jun 12

Alekhine says...

Residents have no more right to park on the public road than commuters or anybody else.

If you believe the council is doing operation out of the goodness of their heart for the residents and not for the revenue then more fool you.
Residents have no more right to park on the public road than commuters or anybody else. If you believe the council is doing operation out of the goodness of their heart for the residents and not for the revenue then more fool you. Alekhine
  • Score: 1

4:13pm Thu 21 Jun 12

Joe Hune says...

The Bald Eagle wrote:
119 posts and the keyboard warriors on here are still at it. Did we touch a nerve? Certain correspondents have made it entirely clear that they do not want the No To Mob to assist with safety and traffic flow in their town. That is their opinion and they are perfectly entitled to it. The members of the NTM are equally entitled to ignore their opinion (and believe me we will) and go about our lawful business of holding public servants and their employees/contractor s to account to us (the public they purport to serve) for their actions. I await the inevitable tirade of uninformed, illogical abuse that will undoubtedly follow, but to quote Lefty Cyclist from one of his posts above, if you don't like it, "Tough".
Yeah you got the hint that your not wanted in Southend, but if anybody expected you to take any notice of that, they were very much mistaken.

Come to Southend, if it keeps your sad little lives happy to ride around our roads everyday then do so.

But if you think the Southend Council will buckle to this type of protest, then wake up and smell the coffee as it is never going to happen!

Can you imagine if they buckle to a few boys on their bikes, they would be U-Turning on everything! The CCTV cars are here to stay and if there was ever a chance to get rid of them, you lot coming here has put a stop to that!!
[quote][p][bold]The Bald Eagle[/bold] wrote: 119 posts and the keyboard warriors on here are still at it. Did we touch a nerve? Certain correspondents have made it entirely clear that they do not want the No To Mob to assist with safety and traffic flow in their town. That is their opinion and they are perfectly entitled to it. The members of the NTM are equally entitled to ignore their opinion (and believe me we will) and go about our lawful business of holding public servants and their employees/contractor s to account to us (the public they purport to serve) for their actions. I await the inevitable tirade of uninformed, illogical abuse that will undoubtedly follow, but to quote Lefty Cyclist from one of his posts above, if you don't like it, "Tough".[/p][/quote]Yeah you got the hint that your not wanted in Southend, but if anybody expected you to take any notice of that, they were very much mistaken. Come to Southend, if it keeps your sad little lives happy to ride around our roads everyday then do so. But if you think the Southend Council will buckle to this type of protest, then wake up and smell the coffee as it is never going to happen! Can you imagine if they buckle to a few boys on their bikes, they would be U-Turning on everything! The CCTV cars are here to stay and if there was ever a chance to get rid of them, you lot coming here has put a stop to that!! Joe Hune
  • Score: 0

5:06pm Thu 21 Jun 12

Lefty Cyclist Type says...

Joe Hune wrote:
The Bald Eagle wrote:
119 posts and the keyboard warriors on here are still at it. Did we touch a nerve? Certain correspondents have made it entirely clear that they do not want the No To Mob to assist with safety and traffic flow in their town. That is their opinion and they are perfectly entitled to it. The members of the NTM are equally entitled to ignore their opinion (and believe me we will) and go about our lawful business of holding public servants and their employees/contractor s to account to us (the public they purport to serve) for their actions. I await the inevitable tirade of uninformed, illogical abuse that will undoubtedly follow, but to quote Lefty Cyclist from one of his posts above, if you don't like it, "Tough".
Yeah you got the hint that your not wanted in Southend, but if anybody expected you to take any notice of that, they were very much mistaken.

Come to Southend, if it keeps your sad little lives happy to ride around our roads everyday then do so.

But if you think the Southend Council will buckle to this type of protest, then wake up and smell the coffee as it is never going to happen!

Can you imagine if they buckle to a few boys on their bikes, they would be U-Turning on everything! The CCTV cars are here to stay and if there was ever a chance to get rid of them, you lot coming here has put a stop to that!!
The only reason they're protesting is because Westminster council brought in parking charges for motorcycles. Until then they'd been able to park free.

They're just children throwing their toys out of the pram because now they have to contribute just like every other driver.
[quote][p][bold]Joe Hune[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Bald Eagle[/bold] wrote: 119 posts and the keyboard warriors on here are still at it. Did we touch a nerve? Certain correspondents have made it entirely clear that they do not want the No To Mob to assist with safety and traffic flow in their town. That is their opinion and they are perfectly entitled to it. The members of the NTM are equally entitled to ignore their opinion (and believe me we will) and go about our lawful business of holding public servants and their employees/contractor s to account to us (the public they purport to serve) for their actions. I await the inevitable tirade of uninformed, illogical abuse that will undoubtedly follow, but to quote Lefty Cyclist from one of his posts above, if you don't like it, "Tough".[/p][/quote]Yeah you got the hint that your not wanted in Southend, but if anybody expected you to take any notice of that, they were very much mistaken. Come to Southend, if it keeps your sad little lives happy to ride around our roads everyday then do so. But if you think the Southend Council will buckle to this type of protest, then wake up and smell the coffee as it is never going to happen! Can you imagine if they buckle to a few boys on their bikes, they would be U-Turning on everything! The CCTV cars are here to stay and if there was ever a chance to get rid of them, you lot coming here has put a stop to that!![/p][/quote]The only reason they're protesting is because Westminster council brought in parking charges for motorcycles. Until then they'd been able to park free. They're just children throwing their toys out of the pram because now they have to contribute just like every other driver. Lefty Cyclist Type
  • Score: 0

5:25pm Thu 21 Jun 12

Alekhine says...

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Joe Hune wrote:
The Bald Eagle wrote: 119 posts and the keyboard warriors on here are still at it. Did we touch a nerve? Certain correspondents have made it entirely clear that they do not want the No To Mob to assist with safety and traffic flow in their town. That is their opinion and they are perfectly entitled to it. The members of the NTM are equally entitled to ignore their opinion (and believe me we will) and go about our lawful business of holding public servants and their employees/contractor s to account to us (the public they purport to serve) for their actions. I await the inevitable tirade of uninformed, illogical abuse that will undoubtedly follow, but to quote Lefty Cyclist from one of his posts above, if you don't like it, "Tough".
Yeah you got the hint that your not wanted in Southend, but if anybody expected you to take any notice of that, they were very much mistaken. Come to Southend, if it keeps your sad little lives happy to ride around our roads everyday then do so. But if you think the Southend Council will buckle to this type of protest, then wake up and smell the coffee as it is never going to happen! Can you imagine if they buckle to a few boys on their bikes, they would be U-Turning on everything! The CCTV cars are here to stay and if there was ever a chance to get rid of them, you lot coming here has put a stop to that!!
The only reason they're protesting is because Westminster council brought in parking charges for motorcycles. Until then they'd been able to park free. They're just children throwing their toys out of the pram because now they have to contribute just like every other driver.
Thats funny, I don't remember car drivers standing up when their free parking was taken away. But i must not take the bait and say that bicycles are next - Doh!
[quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Hune[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Bald Eagle[/bold] wrote: 119 posts and the keyboard warriors on here are still at it. Did we touch a nerve? Certain correspondents have made it entirely clear that they do not want the No To Mob to assist with safety and traffic flow in their town. That is their opinion and they are perfectly entitled to it. The members of the NTM are equally entitled to ignore their opinion (and believe me we will) and go about our lawful business of holding public servants and their employees/contractor s to account to us (the public they purport to serve) for their actions. I await the inevitable tirade of uninformed, illogical abuse that will undoubtedly follow, but to quote Lefty Cyclist from one of his posts above, if you don't like it, "Tough".[/p][/quote]Yeah you got the hint that your not wanted in Southend, but if anybody expected you to take any notice of that, they were very much mistaken. Come to Southend, if it keeps your sad little lives happy to ride around our roads everyday then do so. But if you think the Southend Council will buckle to this type of protest, then wake up and smell the coffee as it is never going to happen! Can you imagine if they buckle to a few boys on their bikes, they would be U-Turning on everything! The CCTV cars are here to stay and if there was ever a chance to get rid of them, you lot coming here has put a stop to that!![/p][/quote]The only reason they're protesting is because Westminster council brought in parking charges for motorcycles. Until then they'd been able to park free. They're just children throwing their toys out of the pram because now they have to contribute just like every other driver.[/p][/quote]Thats funny, I don't remember car drivers standing up when their free parking was taken away. But i must not take the bait and say that bicycles are next - Doh! Alekhine
  • Score: 0

5:32pm Thu 21 Jun 12

dodgie1 says...

Joe Hune wrote:
dodgie1 wrote:
You know these forums just go to show what a load of selfish and self interested ignorant people there are out there. Why don't most of you grow up and take a balanced view at the parking situations that can arise from just being a normal law abiding citizen. Like for instance a friend of mine that happens to live in a road with a bi monthly waiting restriction during the summer months. No problem with cars parked both sides but the council choose to operate this scheme. His daughter visits him to drop her young baby off and because the parking on the other side of the road is full, she parks on the no waiting side for just a couple of minutes . She causes no problem to any one, is not parking dangerously and not causing an obstruction in any way. Yes the spy car gets her. She is given no chance to explain or move the car, she is done. Another one of the 50 odd bookings for that car on that day! Now you wise no alls out there tell me that she has done wrong. Any that say yes she has well I would like to see what you would say if that had happened to you or your daughter. Had a warden on foot seen the situation, he would have most probably had a conversation and gone on his way. The complete disadvantage with the spy cars is the indiscriminate way they operate. You wise no alls out there just wait until you are picked on by these cars for a minor indiscretion. Just wait until you experience the rude and arrogant attitude of the operators. Just wait until you experience the periscope homed in on you for doing nothing. Just wait until you experience the two operators sitting in their little ivory tower smirking at you. I believe you are unable to enter any argument until you know all the facts on both sides. There are far too many people these days that form a bigoted opinion borne of ignorance.
One minute you are giving it large about these people who drive the cars not having any brains and the next minute you are going on about 'bigoted opinion borne of ignorance'!!

WHAT A MUPPET YOU REALLY ARE!!

You don't know these people, you don't know if they are qualified or not, in fact you actually do not know anything about them apart from the job that they do!!

How does the driver of the car know this women hasn't been there all day??

How does he know she has a baby??

How does he know she is visiting?

He will see a vehicle parking illigally and film it for 3 minutes as quoted by some Council official in a previous article. If he doesn't see any movement for 3 minutes yes he has every right to issue the person with a ticket!

Why don't they get out of their cars? Would you if you had to put up with some of the bad mouthed bigoted, ignorant people who live in Southend or comment on this site, because I wouldn't!!

Why do people want foot Wardens? Because they can be intimidated or thretened.

Pathetic people like you who in one comment go on about the drivers not being that gifted and then later on go on about a balanced views.

I see these Wardens walking outside my shop every day and they get crap and abuse all the time. I'm glad they have these cars and don't get out to talk to idiots like you and I just hope that the CCTV car gets you or yours one day as I can't think of anybody else who would deserve it more!
It did get me mate and I appealed and won 'cos im a bit cleverer than most of you on here!
[quote][p][bold]Joe Hune[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dodgie1[/bold] wrote: You know these forums just go to show what a load of selfish and self interested ignorant people there are out there. Why don't most of you grow up and take a balanced view at the parking situations that can arise from just being a normal law abiding citizen. Like for instance a friend of mine that happens to live in a road with a bi monthly waiting restriction during the summer months. No problem with cars parked both sides but the council choose to operate this scheme. His daughter visits him to drop her young baby off and because the parking on the other side of the road is full, she parks on the no waiting side for just a couple of minutes . She causes no problem to any one, is not parking dangerously and not causing an obstruction in any way. Yes the spy car gets her. She is given no chance to explain or move the car, she is done. Another one of the 50 odd bookings for that car on that day! Now you wise no alls out there tell me that she has done wrong. Any that say yes she has well I would like to see what you would say if that had happened to you or your daughter. Had a warden on foot seen the situation, he would have most probably had a conversation and gone on his way. The complete disadvantage with the spy cars is the indiscriminate way they operate. You wise no alls out there just wait until you are picked on by these cars for a minor indiscretion. Just wait until you experience the rude and arrogant attitude of the operators. Just wait until you experience the periscope homed in on you for doing nothing. Just wait until you experience the two operators sitting in their little ivory tower smirking at you. I believe you are unable to enter any argument until you know all the facts on both sides. There are far too many people these days that form a bigoted opinion borne of ignorance.[/p][/quote]One minute you are giving it large about these people who drive the cars not having any brains and the next minute you are going on about 'bigoted opinion borne of ignorance'!! WHAT A MUPPET YOU REALLY ARE!! You don't know these people, you don't know if they are qualified or not, in fact you actually do not know anything about them apart from the job that they do!! How does the driver of the car know this women hasn't been there all day?? How does he know she has a baby?? How does he know she is visiting? He will see a vehicle parking illigally and film it for 3 minutes as quoted by some Council official in a previous article. If he doesn't see any movement for 3 minutes yes he has every right to issue the person with a ticket! Why don't they get out of their cars? Would you if you had to put up with some of the bad mouthed bigoted, ignorant people who live in Southend or comment on this site, because I wouldn't!! Why do people want foot Wardens? Because they can be intimidated or thretened. Pathetic people like you who in one comment go on about the drivers not being that gifted and then later on go on about a balanced views. I see these Wardens walking outside my shop every day and they get crap and abuse all the time. I'm glad they have these cars and don't get out to talk to idiots like you and I just hope that the CCTV car gets you or yours one day as I can't think of anybody else who would deserve it more![/p][/quote]It did get me mate and I appealed and won 'cos im a bit cleverer than most of you on here! dodgie1
  • Score: 0

5:37pm Thu 21 Jun 12

emcee says...

Joe Hune wrote:
The Bald Eagle wrote:
119 posts and the keyboard warriors on here are still at it. Did we touch a nerve? Certain correspondents have made it entirely clear that they do not want the No To Mob to assist with safety and traffic flow in their town. That is their opinion and they are perfectly entitled to it. The members of the NTM are equally entitled to ignore their opinion (and believe me we will) and go about our lawful business of holding public servants and their employees/contractor s to account to us (the public they purport to serve) for their actions. I await the inevitable tirade of uninformed, illogical abuse that will undoubtedly follow, but to quote Lefty Cyclist from one of his posts above, if you don't like it, "Tough".
Yeah you got the hint that your not wanted in Southend, but if anybody expected you to take any notice of that, they were very much mistaken.

Come to Southend, if it keeps your sad little lives happy to ride around our roads everyday then do so.

But if you think the Southend Council will buckle to this type of protest, then wake up and smell the coffee as it is never going to happen!

Can you imagine if they buckle to a few boys on their bikes, they would be U-Turning on everything! The CCTV cars are here to stay and if there was ever a chance to get rid of them, you lot coming here has put a stop to that!!
I don't think the council will buckle (although, you never know). However, all these bikers are doing is assisting the CCTV car by warning drivers not to park where they shouldn't. As that is supposed to be the whole purpose of these CCTV cars (council spin) then what is problem? The real reason the council and APCOA do not like it, and lets be really honest here, is because these bikers are slowing down the revenue flow that these CCTV cars create. Pure and simple.
[quote][p][bold]Joe Hune[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Bald Eagle[/bold] wrote: 119 posts and the keyboard warriors on here are still at it. Did we touch a nerve? Certain correspondents have made it entirely clear that they do not want the No To Mob to assist with safety and traffic flow in their town. That is their opinion and they are perfectly entitled to it. The members of the NTM are equally entitled to ignore their opinion (and believe me we will) and go about our lawful business of holding public servants and their employees/contractor s to account to us (the public they purport to serve) for their actions. I await the inevitable tirade of uninformed, illogical abuse that will undoubtedly follow, but to quote Lefty Cyclist from one of his posts above, if you don't like it, "Tough".[/p][/quote]Yeah you got the hint that your not wanted in Southend, but if anybody expected you to take any notice of that, they were very much mistaken. Come to Southend, if it keeps your sad little lives happy to ride around our roads everyday then do so. But if you think the Southend Council will buckle to this type of protest, then wake up and smell the coffee as it is never going to happen! Can you imagine if they buckle to a few boys on their bikes, they would be U-Turning on everything! The CCTV cars are here to stay and if there was ever a chance to get rid of them, you lot coming here has put a stop to that!![/p][/quote]I don't think the council will buckle (although, you never know). However, all these bikers are doing is assisting the CCTV car by warning drivers not to park where they shouldn't. As that is supposed to be the whole purpose of these CCTV cars (council spin) then what is problem? The real reason the council and APCOA do not like it, and lets be really honest here, is because these bikers are slowing down the revenue flow that these CCTV cars create. Pure and simple. emcee
  • Score: 0

5:59pm Thu 21 Jun 12

dodgie1 says...

Joe Hune wrote:
dodgie1 wrote:
You know these forums just go to show what a load of selfish and self interested ignorant people there are out there. Why don't most of you grow up and take a balanced view at the parking situations that can arise from just being a normal law abiding citizen. Like for instance a friend of mine that happens to live in a road with a bi monthly waiting restriction during the summer months. No problem with cars parked both sides but the council choose to operate this scheme. His daughter visits him to drop her young baby off and because the parking on the other side of the road is full, she parks on the no waiting side for just a couple of minutes . She causes no problem to any one, is not parking dangerously and not causing an obstruction in any way. Yes the spy car gets her. She is given no chance to explain or move the car, she is done. Another one of the 50 odd bookings for that car on that day! Now you wise no alls out there tell me that she has done wrong. Any that say yes she has well I would like to see what you would say if that had happened to you or your daughter. Had a warden on foot seen the situation, he would have most probably had a conversation and gone on his way. The complete disadvantage with the spy cars is the indiscriminate way they operate. You wise no alls out there just wait until you are picked on by these cars for a minor indiscretion. Just wait until you experience the rude and arrogant attitude of the operators. Just wait until you experience the periscope homed in on you for doing nothing. Just wait until you experience the two operators sitting in their little ivory tower smirking at you. I believe you are unable to enter any argument until you know all the facts on both sides. There are far too many people these days that form a bigoted opinion borne of ignorance.
One minute you are giving it large about these people who drive the cars not having any brains and the next minute you are going on about 'bigoted opinion borne of ignorance'!!

WHAT A MUPPET YOU REALLY ARE!!

You don't know these people, you don't know if they are qualified or not, in fact you actually do not know anything about them apart from the job that they do!!

How does the driver of the car know this women hasn't been there all day??

How does he know she has a baby??

How does he know she is visiting?

He will see a vehicle parking illigally and film it for 3 minutes as quoted by some Council official in a previous article. If he doesn't see any movement for 3 minutes yes he has every right to issue the person with a ticket!

Why don't they get out of their cars? Would you if you had to put up with some of the bad mouthed bigoted, ignorant people who live in Southend or comment on this site, because I wouldn't!!

Why do people want foot Wardens? Because they can be intimidated or thretened.

Pathetic people like you who in one comment go on about the drivers not being that gifted and then later on go on about a balanced views.

I see these Wardens walking outside my shop every day and they get crap and abuse all the time. I'm glad they have these cars and don't get out to talk to idiots like you and I just hope that the CCTV car gets you or yours one day as I can't think of anybody else who would deserve it more!
I can afford to pay it mate so it don't bother me!
[quote][p][bold]Joe Hune[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dodgie1[/bold] wrote: You know these forums just go to show what a load of selfish and self interested ignorant people there are out there. Why don't most of you grow up and take a balanced view at the parking situations that can arise from just being a normal law abiding citizen. Like for instance a friend of mine that happens to live in a road with a bi monthly waiting restriction during the summer months. No problem with cars parked both sides but the council choose to operate this scheme. His daughter visits him to drop her young baby off and because the parking on the other side of the road is full, she parks on the no waiting side for just a couple of minutes . She causes no problem to any one, is not parking dangerously and not causing an obstruction in any way. Yes the spy car gets her. She is given no chance to explain or move the car, she is done. Another one of the 50 odd bookings for that car on that day! Now you wise no alls out there tell me that she has done wrong. Any that say yes she has well I would like to see what you would say if that had happened to you or your daughter. Had a warden on foot seen the situation, he would have most probably had a conversation and gone on his way. The complete disadvantage with the spy cars is the indiscriminate way they operate. You wise no alls out there just wait until you are picked on by these cars for a minor indiscretion. Just wait until you experience the rude and arrogant attitude of the operators. Just wait until you experience the periscope homed in on you for doing nothing. Just wait until you experience the two operators sitting in their little ivory tower smirking at you. I believe you are unable to enter any argument until you know all the facts on both sides. There are far too many people these days that form a bigoted opinion borne of ignorance.[/p][/quote]One minute you are giving it large about these people who drive the cars not having any brains and the next minute you are going on about 'bigoted opinion borne of ignorance'!! WHAT A MUPPET YOU REALLY ARE!! You don't know these people, you don't know if they are qualified or not, in fact you actually do not know anything about them apart from the job that they do!! How does the driver of the car know this women hasn't been there all day?? How does he know she has a baby?? How does he know she is visiting? He will see a vehicle parking illigally and film it for 3 minutes as quoted by some Council official in a previous article. If he doesn't see any movement for 3 minutes yes he has every right to issue the person with a ticket! Why don't they get out of their cars? Would you if you had to put up with some of the bad mouthed bigoted, ignorant people who live in Southend or comment on this site, because I wouldn't!! Why do people want foot Wardens? Because they can be intimidated or thretened. Pathetic people like you who in one comment go on about the drivers not being that gifted and then later on go on about a balanced views. I see these Wardens walking outside my shop every day and they get crap and abuse all the time. I'm glad they have these cars and don't get out to talk to idiots like you and I just hope that the CCTV car gets you or yours one day as I can't think of anybody else who would deserve it more![/p][/quote]I can afford to pay it mate so it don't bother me! dodgie1
  • Score: 0

8:06pm Thu 21 Jun 12

meldrew84 says...

emcee wrote:
Joe Hune wrote:
The Bald Eagle wrote:
119 posts and the keyboard warriors on here are still at it. Did we touch a nerve? Certain correspondents have made it entirely clear that they do not want the No To Mob to assist with safety and traffic flow in their town. That is their opinion and they are perfectly entitled to it. The members of the NTM are equally entitled to ignore their opinion (and believe me we will) and go about our lawful business of holding public servants and their employees/contractor s to account to us (the public they purport to serve) for their actions. I await the inevitable tirade of uninformed, illogical abuse that will undoubtedly follow, but to quote Lefty Cyclist from one of his posts above, if you don't like it, "Tough".
Yeah you got the hint that your not wanted in Southend, but if anybody expected you to take any notice of that, they were very much mistaken.

Come to Southend, if it keeps your sad little lives happy to ride around our roads everyday then do so.

But if you think the Southend Council will buckle to this type of protest, then wake up and smell the coffee as it is never going to happen!

Can you imagine if they buckle to a few boys on their bikes, they would be U-Turning on everything! The CCTV cars are here to stay and if there was ever a chance to get rid of them, you lot coming here has put a stop to that!!
I don't think the council will buckle (although, you never know). However, all these bikers are doing is assisting the CCTV car by warning drivers not to park where they shouldn't. As that is supposed to be the whole purpose of these CCTV cars (council spin) then what is problem? The real reason the council and APCOA do not like it, and lets be really honest here, is because these bikers are slowing down the revenue flow that these CCTV cars create. Pure and simple.
Do you REALLY believe that's the intentions of the bikers??? I sincerely doubt it. They couldn't possibly come on here and admit they are just being childish little bullies, they have to keep it marginally legal. Although it appears as though morals have flown far beyond them......
[quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Hune[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Bald Eagle[/bold] wrote: 119 posts and the keyboard warriors on here are still at it. Did we touch a nerve? Certain correspondents have made it entirely clear that they do not want the No To Mob to assist with safety and traffic flow in their town. That is their opinion and they are perfectly entitled to it. The members of the NTM are equally entitled to ignore their opinion (and believe me we will) and go about our lawful business of holding public servants and their employees/contractor s to account to us (the public they purport to serve) for their actions. I await the inevitable tirade of uninformed, illogical abuse that will undoubtedly follow, but to quote Lefty Cyclist from one of his posts above, if you don't like it, "Tough".[/p][/quote]Yeah you got the hint that your not wanted in Southend, but if anybody expected you to take any notice of that, they were very much mistaken. Come to Southend, if it keeps your sad little lives happy to ride around our roads everyday then do so. But if you think the Southend Council will buckle to this type of protest, then wake up and smell the coffee as it is never going to happen! Can you imagine if they buckle to a few boys on their bikes, they would be U-Turning on everything! The CCTV cars are here to stay and if there was ever a chance to get rid of them, you lot coming here has put a stop to that!![/p][/quote]I don't think the council will buckle (although, you never know). However, all these bikers are doing is assisting the CCTV car by warning drivers not to park where they shouldn't. As that is supposed to be the whole purpose of these CCTV cars (council spin) then what is problem? The real reason the council and APCOA do not like it, and lets be really honest here, is because these bikers are slowing down the revenue flow that these CCTV cars create. Pure and simple.[/p][/quote]Do you REALLY believe that's the intentions of the bikers??? I sincerely doubt it. They couldn't possibly come on here and admit they are just being childish little bullies, they have to keep it marginally legal. Although it appears as though morals have flown far beyond them...... meldrew84
  • Score: -2

12:26am Fri 22 Jun 12

emcee says...

meldrew84 wrote:
emcee wrote:
Joe Hune wrote:
The Bald Eagle wrote:
119 posts and the keyboard warriors on here are still at it. Did we touch a nerve? Certain correspondents have made it entirely clear that they do not want the No To Mob to assist with safety and traffic flow in their town. That is their opinion and they are perfectly entitled to it. The members of the NTM are equally entitled to ignore their opinion (and believe me we will) and go about our lawful business of holding public servants and their employees/contractor s to account to us (the public they purport to serve) for their actions. I await the inevitable tirade of uninformed, illogical abuse that will undoubtedly follow, but to quote Lefty Cyclist from one of his posts above, if you don't like it, "Tough".
Yeah you got the hint that your not wanted in Southend, but if anybody expected you to take any notice of that, they were very much mistaken.

Come to Southend, if it keeps your sad little lives happy to ride around our roads everyday then do so.

But if you think the Southend Council will buckle to this type of protest, then wake up and smell the coffee as it is never going to happen!

Can you imagine if they buckle to a few boys on their bikes, they would be U-Turning on everything! The CCTV cars are here to stay and if there was ever a chance to get rid of them, you lot coming here has put a stop to that!!
I don't think the council will buckle (although, you never know). However, all these bikers are doing is assisting the CCTV car by warning drivers not to park where they shouldn't. As that is supposed to be the whole purpose of these CCTV cars (council spin) then what is problem? The real reason the council and APCOA do not like it, and lets be really honest here, is because these bikers are slowing down the revenue flow that these CCTV cars create. Pure and simple.
Do you REALLY believe that's the intentions of the bikers??? I sincerely doubt it. They couldn't possibly come on here and admit they are just being childish little bullies, they have to keep it marginally legal. Although it appears as though morals have flown far beyond them......
Actually, yes I do. They have constantly said that they have no qualms with the council dealing with illegal parkers. However, they do have an issue with how CCTV cars deal with illegal parkers and their "catch all" (guilty before being proved innocent) methods, regardless of victims circumstances or right to park there.
The council would have us all believe that whole point of these CCTV cars is prevention. Sometimes these cars use stealth to obtain a fine when they are supposed to be highly visible so, by drawing attention to car drivers that the CCTV car is about, surely these bikers are helping the CCTV car fulfil it's advertised role.
However, we all know the CCTV cars are a cash cow and the council and parties concerned are just annoyed that these bikers are ruining business.
Also, if the CCTV car operators feel intimaidated or "bullied" (how you justify this term is beyond me) by a biker riding in front of and/or behind them, in a safe and legal manner, then they are certainly not fit to carry out their operators role or drive the CCTV car in the first place.
[quote][p][bold]meldrew84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Hune[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Bald Eagle[/bold] wrote: 119 posts and the keyboard warriors on here are still at it. Did we touch a nerve? Certain correspondents have made it entirely clear that they do not want the No To Mob to assist with safety and traffic flow in their town. That is their opinion and they are perfectly entitled to it. The members of the NTM are equally entitled to ignore their opinion (and believe me we will) and go about our lawful business of holding public servants and their employees/contractor s to account to us (the public they purport to serve) for their actions. I await the inevitable tirade of uninformed, illogical abuse that will undoubtedly follow, but to quote Lefty Cyclist from one of his posts above, if you don't like it, "Tough".[/p][/quote]Yeah you got the hint that your not wanted in Southend, but if anybody expected you to take any notice of that, they were very much mistaken. Come to Southend, if it keeps your sad little lives happy to ride around our roads everyday then do so. But if you think the Southend Council will buckle to this type of protest, then wake up and smell the coffee as it is never going to happen! Can you imagine if they buckle to a few boys on their bikes, they would be U-Turning on everything! The CCTV cars are here to stay and if there was ever a chance to get rid of them, you lot coming here has put a stop to that!![/p][/quote]I don't think the council will buckle (although, you never know). However, all these bikers are doing is assisting the CCTV car by warning drivers not to park where they shouldn't. As that is supposed to be the whole purpose of these CCTV cars (council spin) then what is problem? The real reason the council and APCOA do not like it, and lets be really honest here, is because these bikers are slowing down the revenue flow that these CCTV cars create. Pure and simple.[/p][/quote]Do you REALLY believe that's the intentions of the bikers??? I sincerely doubt it. They couldn't possibly come on here and admit they are just being childish little bullies, they have to keep it marginally legal. Although it appears as though morals have flown far beyond them......[/p][/quote]Actually, yes I do. They have constantly said that they have no qualms with the council dealing with illegal parkers. However, they do have an issue with how CCTV cars deal with illegal parkers and their "catch all" (guilty before being proved innocent) methods, regardless of victims circumstances or right to park there. The council would have us all believe that whole point of these CCTV cars is prevention. Sometimes these cars use stealth to obtain a fine when they are supposed to be highly visible so, by drawing attention to car drivers that the CCTV car is about, surely these bikers are helping the CCTV car fulfil it's advertised role. However, we all know the CCTV cars are a cash cow and the council and parties concerned are just annoyed that these bikers are ruining business. Also, if the CCTV car operators feel intimaidated or "bullied" (how you justify this term is beyond me) by a biker riding in front of and/or behind them, in a safe and legal manner, then they are certainly not fit to carry out their operators role or drive the CCTV car in the first place. emcee
  • Score: 2

11:12am Fri 22 Jun 12

meldrew84 says...

emcee wrote:
meldrew84 wrote:
emcee wrote:
Joe Hune wrote:
The Bald Eagle wrote:
119 posts and the keyboard warriors on here are still at it. Did we touch a nerve? Certain correspondents have made it entirely clear that they do not want the No To Mob to assist with safety and traffic flow in their town. That is their opinion and they are perfectly entitled to it. The members of the NTM are equally entitled to ignore their opinion (and believe me we will) and go about our lawful business of holding public servants and their employees/contractor s to account to us (the public they purport to serve) for their actions. I await the inevitable tirade of uninformed, illogical abuse that will undoubtedly follow, but to quote Lefty Cyclist from one of his posts above, if you don't like it, "Tough".
Yeah you got the hint that your not wanted in Southend, but if anybody expected you to take any notice of that, they were very much mistaken.

Come to Southend, if it keeps your sad little lives happy to ride around our roads everyday then do so.

But if you think the Southend Council will buckle to this type of protest, then wake up and smell the coffee as it is never going to happen!

Can you imagine if they buckle to a few boys on their bikes, they would be U-Turning on everything! The CCTV cars are here to stay and if there was ever a chance to get rid of them, you lot coming here has put a stop to that!!
I don't think the council will buckle (although, you never know). However, all these bikers are doing is assisting the CCTV car by warning drivers not to park where they shouldn't. As that is supposed to be the whole purpose of these CCTV cars (council spin) then what is problem? The real reason the council and APCOA do not like it, and lets be really honest here, is because these bikers are slowing down the revenue flow that these CCTV cars create. Pure and simple.
Do you REALLY believe that's the intentions of the bikers??? I sincerely doubt it. They couldn't possibly come on here and admit they are just being childish little bullies, they have to keep it marginally legal. Although it appears as though morals have flown far beyond them......
Actually, yes I do. They have constantly said that they have no qualms with the council dealing with illegal parkers. However, they do have an issue with how CCTV cars deal with illegal parkers and their "catch all" (guilty before being proved innocent) methods, regardless of victims circumstances or right to park there.
The council would have us all believe that whole point of these CCTV cars is prevention. Sometimes these cars use stealth to obtain a fine when they are supposed to be highly visible so, by drawing attention to car drivers that the CCTV car is about, surely these bikers are helping the CCTV car fulfil it's advertised role.
However, we all know the CCTV cars are a cash cow and the council and parties concerned are just annoyed that these bikers are ruining business.
Also, if the CCTV car operators feel intimaidated or "bullied" (how you justify this term is beyond me) by a biker riding in front of and/or behind them, in a safe and legal manner, then they are certainly not fit to carry out their operators role or drive the CCTV car in the first place.
If people wasn't dumb enough to park illegally there would be no cash to be made! No fire without fuel as they say so as i said in a previous post, irresponsible drivers have cost the tax payer even more money. If these bikers were only concerned with stopping people from parking illegally they wouldn't only be following the CCTV cars around would they?? They would plot up at every parking spot they can, regardless of whether there is a car or warden on the horizon. Doesn't take a genius to work out what they are up to does it....
[quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]meldrew84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Hune[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Bald Eagle[/bold] wrote: 119 posts and the keyboard warriors on here are still at it. Did we touch a nerve? Certain correspondents have made it entirely clear that they do not want the No To Mob to assist with safety and traffic flow in their town. That is their opinion and they are perfectly entitled to it. The members of the NTM are equally entitled to ignore their opinion (and believe me we will) and go about our lawful business of holding public servants and their employees/contractor s to account to us (the public they purport to serve) for their actions. I await the inevitable tirade of uninformed, illogical abuse that will undoubtedly follow, but to quote Lefty Cyclist from one of his posts above, if you don't like it, "Tough".[/p][/quote]Yeah you got the hint that your not wanted in Southend, but if anybody expected you to take any notice of that, they were very much mistaken. Come to Southend, if it keeps your sad little lives happy to ride around our roads everyday then do so. But if you think the Southend Council will buckle to this type of protest, then wake up and smell the coffee as it is never going to happen! Can you imagine if they buckle to a few boys on their bikes, they would be U-Turning on everything! The CCTV cars are here to stay and if there was ever a chance to get rid of them, you lot coming here has put a stop to that!![/p][/quote]I don't think the council will buckle (although, you never know). However, all these bikers are doing is assisting the CCTV car by warning drivers not to park where they shouldn't. As that is supposed to be the whole purpose of these CCTV cars (council spin) then what is problem? The real reason the council and APCOA do not like it, and lets be really honest here, is because these bikers are slowing down the revenue flow that these CCTV cars create. Pure and simple.[/p][/quote]Do you REALLY believe that's the intentions of the bikers??? I sincerely doubt it. They couldn't possibly come on here and admit they are just being childish little bullies, they have to keep it marginally legal. Although it appears as though morals have flown far beyond them......[/p][/quote]Actually, yes I do. They have constantly said that they have no qualms with the council dealing with illegal parkers. However, they do have an issue with how CCTV cars deal with illegal parkers and their "catch all" (guilty before being proved innocent) methods, regardless of victims circumstances or right to park there. The council would have us all believe that whole point of these CCTV cars is prevention. Sometimes these cars use stealth to obtain a fine when they are supposed to be highly visible so, by drawing attention to car drivers that the CCTV car is about, surely these bikers are helping the CCTV car fulfil it's advertised role. However, we all know the CCTV cars are a cash cow and the council and parties concerned are just annoyed that these bikers are ruining business. Also, if the CCTV car operators feel intimaidated or "bullied" (how you justify this term is beyond me) by a biker riding in front of and/or behind them, in a safe and legal manner, then they are certainly not fit to carry out their operators role or drive the CCTV car in the first place.[/p][/quote]If people wasn't dumb enough to park illegally there would be no cash to be made! No fire without fuel as they say so as i said in a previous post, irresponsible drivers have cost the tax payer even more money. If these bikers were only concerned with stopping people from parking illegally they wouldn't only be following the CCTV cars around would they?? They would plot up at every parking spot they can, regardless of whether there is a car or warden on the horizon. Doesn't take a genius to work out what they are up to does it.... meldrew84
  • Score: -3

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree