Southend should have more spy cars, says councillor (From Southend Standard)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting ECHONEWS to 80360, or email us Click here for details »
Southend should have more spy cars, says councillor
7:30am Tuesday 5th March 2013 in Echo News
The CCTV car
SOUTHEND should have more spy cars, not fewer, according to a senior councillor.
John Lamb, the Tory deputy leader of Southend Council, spoke out after the authority was presented with a petition of 2,400 signatures calling for the controversial vehicles to be axed.
Disgruntled residents claimed they had destroyed trade in certain shopping parades and unfairly targeted motorists who only stopped for seconds.
But Mr Lamb argued the cars had played a vital role in protecting the town’s schools, grass verges and dangerous junctions.
He said: “There is a complete misconception about what these cars are about.
“They are not spy cars, they are CCTV cars and they manage to get about the town and prevent so much more than ordinary officers might be able to do.
“The damage that is being wreaked on our grass verges and elsewhere is unacceptable.
“I think we should get more CCTV cars so we can get around the borough even more quickly.”
The spy cars – two Toyota iQs armed with rotating CCTV cameras – have dished out more than 11,000 parking tickets since they were introduced in July 2011.
The petition against the vehicles was organised by Bob Wells, owner of Printer and Cartridge Solutions, in Woodgrange Drive, Southend, who said he started it because he feared they were targeting “ordinary” people.
Mr Wells claimed the annual cost of running the vehicles, about £220,000, would be enough to pay for ten wardens who could patrol the same areas on foot.
However, parking chiefs argued the limited amount of time wardens would have to penalise vehicles which stop dangerously outside schools would make normal patrols unworkable.
Comments(78)
fletch12107
says...
7:58am Tue 5 Mar 13
Just leave zig zags outside schools and no parking at junctions and scrap all parking restrictions. I thought roads were built for cars to park on.
Devilish82
says...
7:59am Tue 5 Mar 13
Mr Wells states the cars are "targeting “ordinary” people." Well yes, this would be the case. Unless of course you are aware of some intergalatic species that has recently been parking on our grass verges or carrying out "illegal" parking that are not being given tickets or fines....
I think from the comments on the recent story about "thousands" wanting to get rid of the spy cars would stand up in support of this idea of more cars.
As a few mentioned in the previous comments I have neither been asked whether I would like more or less of the cars by way of petition or otherwise.
Personally, I support the cars but then again, I don't park where I should not.
I think from the comments on the recent story about "thousands" wanting to get rid of the spy cars would stand up in support of this idea of more cars.
As a few mentioned in the previous comments I have neither been asked whether I would like more or less of the cars by way of petition or otherwise.
Personally, I support the cars but then again, I don't park where I should not.
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
8:00am Tue 5 Mar 13
fletch12107 wrote:No. Roads were built for people to travel on, not for people to store their unused property on.
Just leave zig zags outside schools and no parking at junctions and scrap all parking restrictions. I thought roads were built for cars to park on.
Sir Peter Pantsless the 3rd
says...
8:01am Tue 5 Mar 13
He (Lamb) said: “There is a complete misconception about what these cars are about."
Too right Mr Lamb, parking/conjestion is worse than ever, so the only reason to have more spy cars is a:) add to the conjestion and b:) more revenue for the council coffers.
The cars have failed to improve anything and have taken jobs away from people.
He really is stupid if he thinks the boroughs electorate believe they are there for anything else but generating revenue.
You are not fooling anyone!
Too right Mr Lamb, parking/conjestion is worse than ever, so the only reason to have more spy cars is a:) add to the conjestion and b:) more revenue for the council coffers.
The cars have failed to improve anything and have taken jobs away from people.
He really is stupid if he thinks the boroughs electorate believe they are there for anything else but generating revenue.
You are not fooling anyone!
GentleGiant
says...
8:35am Tue 5 Mar 13
If cars are parked illegally, then they should be ticketed.
The problem is people are too lazy to walk a few hundred yards from a legal parking space to their destination.
Sounds like more cars would be good if they cut down on illegal parking.
The problem is people are too lazy to walk a few hundred yards from a legal parking space to their destination.
Sounds like more cars would be good if they cut down on illegal parking.
Nebs
says...
8:35am Tue 5 Mar 13
There should be more spy cars and a team of wardens.
fletch12107
says...
8:44am Tue 5 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:So roads were built for people to travel on and the mode of transport most popularly used is a car. Now not everyone has a garage or off road parking to park their "unused property" ie car on so the logical place would be the road. So what little space is available for those who do not have a garage or off road facility (as road space taken by the aforementioned by means of run offs) should be available free of charge to the rest. If the roads are not for cars to park on as you say then why are councils making vast sums of profit by issuing parking permits and other fees?
fletch12107 wrote:No. Roads were built for people to travel on, not for people to store their unused property on.
Just leave zig zags outside schools and no parking at junctions and scrap all parking restrictions. I thought roads were built for cars to park on.
whateverhappened
says...
8:55am Tue 5 Mar 13
I know i shouldn t but ...... us drivers pay our road tax so should be able to park on the road or anywhere else cause car are great.
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
9:08am Tue 5 Mar 13
whateverhappened wrote:I know you're just trolling, but I'll post this anyway.
I know i shouldn t but ...... us drivers pay our road tax so should be able to park on the road or anywhere else cause car are great.
There is no such thing as 'road tax'.'Road tax' was abolished in 1937. We pay VEHICLE Excise Duty, or car tax, which is a tax on engine size or CO2 emissions. It has precisely nothing to do with any 'right' to be on the road. No-one in the entire UK pays to use the roads, except on a few toll roads and bridges/tunnels.
Roads are paid for through council tax, income tax and every other tax that goes into the central government pot. There is only ONE hypothecated tax in the UK: the television licence. Every other tax goes into the central pot and is distributed as the exchequer sees fit.
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
9:09am Tue 5 Mar 13
fletch12107 wrote:If I didn't have a garden, would it be fair for me to buy a shed and keep it in the road outside my house? No.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:So roads were built for people to travel on and the mode of transport most popularly used is a car. Now not everyone has a garage or off road parking to park their "unused property" ie car on so the logical place would be the road. So what little space is available for those who do not have a garage or off road facility (as road space taken by the aforementioned by means of run offs) should be available free of charge to the rest. If the roads are not for cars to park on as you say then why are councils making vast sums of profit by issuing parking permits and other fees?
fletch12107 wrote:No. Roads were built for people to travel on, not for people to store their unused property on.
Just leave zig zags outside schools and no parking at junctions and scrap all parking restrictions. I thought roads were built for cars to park on.
The same principle applies to cars. If you dan't have somewhere to keep one, don't buy one.
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
9:19am Tue 5 Mar 13
Obviousky that should be 'don't'.
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
9:20am Tue 5 Mar 13
Obviously! Flaming iPhone!
Chris Flunk
says...
9:34am Tue 5 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:If you obtained the correct licence from the council and had appropriate reflective markings, cones, safety lamps etc then I don't see that it would be breaking the law.
fletch12107 wrote:If I didn't have a garden, would it be fair for me to buy a shed and keep it in the road outside my house? No.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:So roads were built for people to travel on and the mode of transport most popularly used is a car. Now not everyone has a garage or off road parking to park their "unused property" ie car on so the logical place would be the road. So what little space is available for those who do not have a garage or off road facility (as road space taken by the aforementioned by means of run offs) should be available free of charge to the rest. If the roads are not for cars to park on as you say then why are councils making vast sums of profit by issuing parking permits and other fees?
fletch12107 wrote:No. Roads were built for people to travel on, not for people to store their unused property on.
Just leave zig zags outside schools and no parking at junctions and scrap all parking restrictions. I thought roads were built for cars to park on.
The same principle applies to cars. If you dan't have somewhere to keep one, don't buy one.
In the same way, by keeping a vehicle taxed and abiding by the highway code you are entitled to park anywhere on the PUBLIC highway.
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
9:39am Tue 5 Mar 13
Chris Flunk wrote:… and then those same drivers will complain about congestion and traffic not being able to move, in roads no longer wide enough for that traffic because they're clogged up with unused cars.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:If you obtained the correct licence from the council and had appropriate reflective markings, cones, safety lamps etc then I don't see that it would be breaking the law.
fletch12107 wrote:If I didn't have a garden, would it be fair for me to buy a shed and keep it in the road outside my house? No.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:So roads were built for people to travel on and the mode of transport most popularly used is a car. Now not everyone has a garage or off road parking to park their "unused property" ie car on so the logical place would be the road. So what little space is available for those who do not have a garage or off road facility (as road space taken by the aforementioned by means of run offs) should be available free of charge to the rest. If the roads are not for cars to park on as you say then why are councils making vast sums of profit by issuing parking permits and other fees?
fletch12107 wrote:No. Roads were built for people to travel on, not for people to store their unused property on.
Just leave zig zags outside schools and no parking at junctions and scrap all parking restrictions. I thought roads were built for cars to park on.
The same principle applies to cars. If you dan't have somewhere to keep one, don't buy one.
In the same way, by keeping a vehicle taxed and abiding by the highway code you are entitled to park anywhere on the PUBLIC highway.
Yes it is the PUBLIC Highway, a 'highway' for people to move along, for ALL the public to use.
It isn't there for people to fill up with their unused property. All on-street parking should be outlawed.
DogsMessInLeigh
says...
9:52am Tue 5 Mar 13
£220000 to run one...!!!
how does that break down in costs, surely theres a cheaper one out there, the car is leased (is it better to buy 1 Toyota ) and the equipment is a few cameras and a hand held monitor which records...how can that be £220000 per year, life span if buying i would think would be at least 10 years usage being a Toyota,plus servicing in house, say the equipment is £10000+ fitted, so cost of car from Toyota at £10000, plus £10000(guess) for the equipment, thats £20000 plus service/running costs/wages..(possib
le extra £50k), so thats £150000 saved per year..(approx and guess work)...even if it saved £100000 per year it could work.
how does that break down in costs, surely theres a cheaper one out there, the car is leased (is it better to buy 1 Toyota ) and the equipment is a few cameras and a hand held monitor which records...how can that be £220000 per year, life span if buying i would think would be at least 10 years usage being a Toyota,plus servicing in house, say the equipment is £10000+ fitted, so cost of car from Toyota at £10000, plus £10000(guess) for the equipment, thats £20000 plus service/running costs/wages..(possib
le extra £50k), so thats £150000 saved per year..(approx and guess work)...even if it saved £100000 per year it could work.
Carnabackable
says...
10:21am Tue 5 Mar 13
fletch12107 wrote:What are you on ? roads are for driving on, and due to the stupidity of so many, now there equally, so many restrictions.
Just leave zig zags outside schools and no parking at junctions and scrap all parking restrictions. I thought roads were built for cars to park on.
Increase the spy car fleet, start issuing some life changing penalties, and see the roads unclog as drivers get the message...
stopmoaning1
says...
10:26am Tue 5 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:You seem to be quite vocal on this subject. However, when the ideal opportunity came up for you to support off street parking with the recent story on the drop kerbs, you were noticeably quiet, even I think to the point of raising a few objections.
Chris Flunk wrote:… and then those same drivers will complain about congestion and traffic not being able to move, in roads no longer wide enough for that traffic because they're clogged up with unused cars.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:If you obtained the correct licence from the council and had appropriate reflective markings, cones, safety lamps etc then I don't see that it would be breaking the law.
fletch12107 wrote:If I didn't have a garden, would it be fair for me to buy a shed and keep it in the road outside my house? No.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:So roads were built for people to travel on and the mode of transport most popularly used is a car. Now not everyone has a garage or off road parking to park their "unused property" ie car on so the logical place would be the road. So what little space is available for those who do not have a garage or off road facility (as road space taken by the aforementioned by means of run offs) should be available free of charge to the rest. If the roads are not for cars to park on as you say then why are councils making vast sums of profit by issuing parking permits and other fees?
fletch12107 wrote:No. Roads were built for people to travel on, not for people to store their unused property on.
Just leave zig zags outside schools and no parking at junctions and scrap all parking restrictions. I thought roads were built for cars to park on.
The same principle applies to cars. If you dan't have somewhere to keep one, don't buy one.
In the same way, by keeping a vehicle taxed and abiding by the highway code you are entitled to park anywhere on the PUBLIC highway.
Yes it is the PUBLIC Highway, a 'highway' for people to move along, for ALL the public to use.
It isn't there for people to fill up with their unused property. All on-street parking should be outlawed.
jayman
says...
10:36am Tue 5 Mar 13
the thing that concerns me about CCTV cars is that they can become a platform for many purposes.
with a mobile camera all manner of things are possible and are not beyond the imagination or technical capability.
. Face recognition) one quick photo, a mobile internet connection and a link to social networks. the operators then know who you are, where you are and who you are with..
It would concern me greatly if CCTV cars where rolled out nationally, It would concern me even more if there was an established link formed between these cars and government/police agencies..
If this where to become the case then i believe it would be then that the only thing George Orwell got wrong was 'the date'...
with a mobile camera all manner of things are possible and are not beyond the imagination or technical capability.
. Face recognition) one quick photo, a mobile internet connection and a link to social networks. the operators then know who you are, where you are and who you are with..
It would concern me greatly if CCTV cars where rolled out nationally, It would concern me even more if there was an established link formed between these cars and government/police agencies..
If this where to become the case then i believe it would be then that the only thing George Orwell got wrong was 'the date'...
Dinosaur_Jr
says...
12:44pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Firstly can I say that I support these cars and the enforcement of parking restrictions. The majority of people who moan about these vehicles seem to be people who want to park illegally. And illegally - in most cases - means parking dangerously, putting people at risk.
Chris Flunk wrote:… and then those same drivers will complain about congestion and traffic not being able to move, in roads no longer wide enough for that traffic because they're clogged up with unused cars.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:If you obtained the correct licence from the council and had appropriate reflective markings, cones, safety lamps etc then I don't see that it would be breaking the law.
fletch12107 wrote:If I didn't have a garden, would it be fair for me to buy a shed and keep it in the road outside my house? No.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:So roads were built for people to travel on and the mode of transport most popularly used is a car. Now not everyone has a garage or off road parking to park their "unused property" ie car on so the logical place would be the road. So what little space is available for those who do not have a garage or off road facility (as road space taken by the aforementioned by means of run offs) should be available free of charge to the rest. If the roads are not for cars to park on as you say then why are councils making vast sums of profit by issuing parking permits and other fees?
fletch12107 wrote:No. Roads were built for people to travel on, not for people to store their unused property on.
Just leave zig zags outside schools and no parking at junctions and scrap all parking restrictions. I thought roads were built for cars to park on.
The same principle applies to cars. If you dan't have somewhere to keep one, don't buy one.
In the same way, by keeping a vehicle taxed and abiding by the highway code you are entitled to park anywhere on the PUBLIC highway.
Yes it is the PUBLIC Highway, a 'highway' for people to move along, for ALL the public to use.
It isn't there for people to fill up with their unused property. All on-street parking should be outlawed.
I also get extremely frustrated with people down my road who have a driveway but still park on the road because they are too lazy or feel it's their right to own 4 or 5 vehicles. However, to say that "all on street parking should be outlawed" is incredible obtuse.
Just because people may not be in a position to afford to live in a property which has no off-street parking - which is usually financial and therefore no fault of their own - should preclude them from having the same rights as everyone else.
Dinosaur_Jr
says...
1:14pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Should be "should not preclude"
Maverick06
says...
1:14pm Tue 5 Mar 13
I think three issues are confused here.
1. Parking over a driveway
2. Parking restrictions
3. CCTV enforcement
If you get 1 & 2 right, then 3 shouldn't be an issue.
If the Council give in to more people having a drop down curb and installing a driveway, then they are creating less space for everybody else to park, but the argument would be with more cars on driveways it would mean less cars in the street. You then get the issue as previously stated that people don't bother to park on their drive and still take up space in an already congested street.
The second issue and this is were local residents come in are double or single Yellow lines. Some of these were put in place 20 years ago and are not required anymore as the local area has changed, but nobody has ever reviewed the lines. If you get this right in your local area, then it should ease parking.
Point 3 is a no brainer really as the CCTV cars only effect people that are inconsiderate where they park or as stated too lazy to park correctly thinking the parking restrictions don't apply to them.
I would say get on to the Council to remove certain double or single Yellow lines and leave the CCTV cars alone.
I somehow think Cllr Lambs remark was just made to get the Independants backs up and also to make a statement that these cars don't spy!
1. Parking over a driveway
2. Parking restrictions
3. CCTV enforcement
If you get 1 & 2 right, then 3 shouldn't be an issue.
If the Council give in to more people having a drop down curb and installing a driveway, then they are creating less space for everybody else to park, but the argument would be with more cars on driveways it would mean less cars in the street. You then get the issue as previously stated that people don't bother to park on their drive and still take up space in an already congested street.
The second issue and this is were local residents come in are double or single Yellow lines. Some of these were put in place 20 years ago and are not required anymore as the local area has changed, but nobody has ever reviewed the lines. If you get this right in your local area, then it should ease parking.
Point 3 is a no brainer really as the CCTV cars only effect people that are inconsiderate where they park or as stated too lazy to park correctly thinking the parking restrictions don't apply to them.
I would say get on to the Council to remove certain double or single Yellow lines and leave the CCTV cars alone.
I somehow think Cllr Lambs remark was just made to get the Independants backs up and also to make a statement that these cars don't spy!
fredfoot
says...
3:29pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Good idea they ought to watch Windermere Road school gate at school time for people dropping off on the zig zags, Saint Lukes road is bad for parking on the grass verge and so is Rochford Road. Bring them on.
fletch12107
says...
3:32pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Carnabackable wrote:Don't understand the question "what are you on". Do you mean what am I sitting on? However back to your comment I am sure that if you drive a car and go to a shop outside of a retail park then I am assuming you would park on the road near that shop. Those advocating more spy cars and more restrictions will drive the death knell into all local business and the jobs that they provide.
fletch12107 wrote:What are you on ? roads are for driving on, and due to the stupidity of so many, now there equally, so many restrictions.
Just leave zig zags outside schools and no parking at junctions and scrap all parking restrictions. I thought roads were built for cars to park on.
Increase the spy car fleet, start issuing some life changing penalties, and see the roads unclog as drivers get the message...
fletch12107
says...
3:33pm Tue 5 Mar 13
stopmoaning1 wrote:I am sure that if you drive a car and go to a shop outside of a retail park then I am assuming you would park on the road near that shop. Those advocating more spy cars and more restrictions will drive the death knell into all local business and the jobs that they provide.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:You seem to be quite vocal on this subject. However, when the ideal opportunity came up for you to support off street parking with the recent story on the drop kerbs, you were noticeably quiet, even I think to the point of raising a few objections.
Chris Flunk wrote:… and then those same drivers will complain about congestion and traffic not being able to move, in roads no longer wide enough for that traffic because they're clogged up with unused cars.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:If you obtained the correct licence from the council and had appropriate reflective markings, cones, safety lamps etc then I don't see that it would be breaking the law.
fletch12107 wrote:If I didn't have a garden, would it be fair for me to buy a shed and keep it in the road outside my house? No.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:So roads were built for people to travel on and the mode of transport most popularly used is a car. Now not everyone has a garage or off road parking to park their "unused property" ie car on so the logical place would be the road. So what little space is available for those who do not have a garage or off road facility (as road space taken by the aforementioned by means of run offs) should be available free of charge to the rest. If the roads are not for cars to park on as you say then why are councils making vast sums of profit by issuing parking permits and other fees?
fletch12107 wrote:No. Roads were built for people to travel on, not for people to store their unused property on.
Just leave zig zags outside schools and no parking at junctions and scrap all parking restrictions. I thought roads were built for cars to park on.
The same principle applies to cars. If you dan't have somewhere to keep one, don't buy one.
In the same way, by keeping a vehicle taxed and abiding by the highway code you are entitled to park anywhere on the PUBLIC highway.
Yes it is the PUBLIC Highway, a 'highway' for people to move along, for ALL the public to use.
It isn't there for people to fill up with their unused property. All on-street parking should be outlawed.
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
4:07pm Tue 5 Mar 13
stopmoaning1 wrote:Actually I wasn't. I correctly pointed out that those houses already have garages and driveways, and that there was no need for a second dropped kerb for the same house.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:You seem to be quite vocal on this subject. However, when the ideal opportunity came up for you to support off street parking with the recent story on the drop kerbs, you were noticeably quiet, even I think to the point of raising a few objections.
Chris Flunk wrote:… and then those same drivers will complain about congestion and traffic not being able to move, in roads no longer wide enough for that traffic because they're clogged up with unused cars.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:If you obtained the correct licence from the council and had appropriate reflective markings, cones, safety lamps etc then I don't see that it would be breaking the law.
fletch12107 wrote:If I didn't have a garden, would it be fair for me to buy a shed and keep it in the road outside my house? No.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:So roads were built for people to travel on and the mode of transport most popularly used is a car. Now not everyone has a garage or off road parking to park their "unused property" ie car on so the logical place would be the road. So what little space is available for those who do not have a garage or off road facility (as road space taken by the aforementioned by means of run offs) should be available free of charge to the rest. If the roads are not for cars to park on as you say then why are councils making vast sums of profit by issuing parking permits and other fees?
fletch12107 wrote:No. Roads were built for people to travel on, not for people to store their unused property on.
Just leave zig zags outside schools and no parking at junctions and scrap all parking restrictions. I thought roads were built for cars to park on.
The same principle applies to cars. If you dan't have somewhere to keep one, don't buy one.
In the same way, by keeping a vehicle taxed and abiding by the highway code you are entitled to park anywhere on the PUBLIC highway.
Yes it is the PUBLIC Highway, a 'highway' for people to move along, for ALL the public to use.
It isn't there for people to fill up with their unused property. All on-street parking should be outlawed.
Why do you keep inventing lies about me?
stopmoaning1
says...
5:34pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Well here is your only other comment on the matter
stopmoaning1 wrote:Actually I wasn't. I correctly pointed out that those houses already have garages and driveways, and that there was no need for a second dropped kerb for the same house.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:You seem to be quite vocal on this subject. However, when the ideal opportunity came up for you to support off street parking with the recent story on the drop kerbs, you were noticeably quiet, even I think to the point of raising a few objections.
Chris Flunk wrote:… and then those same drivers will complain about congestion and traffic not being able to move, in roads no longer wide enough for that traffic because they're clogged up with unused cars.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:If you obtained the correct licence from the council and had appropriate reflective markings, cones, safety lamps etc then I don't see that it would be breaking the law.
fletch12107 wrote:If I didn't have a garden, would it be fair for me to buy a shed and keep it in the road outside my house? No.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:So roads were built for people to travel on and the mode of transport most popularly used is a car. Now not everyone has a garage or off road parking to park their "unused property" ie car on so the logical place would be the road. So what little space is available for those who do not have a garage or off road facility (as road space taken by the aforementioned by means of run offs) should be available free of charge to the rest. If the roads are not for cars to park on as you say then why are councils making vast sums of profit by issuing parking permits and other fees?
fletch12107 wrote:No. Roads were built for people to travel on, not for people to store their unused property on.
Just leave zig zags outside schools and no parking at junctions and scrap all parking restrictions. I thought roads were built for cars to park on.
The same principle applies to cars. If you dan't have somewhere to keep one, don't buy one.
In the same way, by keeping a vehicle taxed and abiding by the highway code you are entitled to park anywhere on the PUBLIC highway.
Yes it is the PUBLIC Highway, a 'highway' for people to move along, for ALL the public to use.
It isn't there for people to fill up with their unused property. All on-street parking should be outlawed.
Why do you keep inventing lies about me?
Shoebury_Cyclist says...
4:53pm Thu 28 Feb 13
Those houses have garages, AND space in front of their garages. There is no need for the loss of more green space. It's a fine balance. Houselholds need to park their cars, but the ecology and flood plain has to be preserved.
Hardly supportive considering some of your other comments about people not owning cars unless they have somewhere to park them other than on the road.
And I don’t ‘keep inventing lies’ about you. It’s just that it’s difficult to keep up with your posts sometimes as you do tend to contradict yourself.
I would be very happy to offer an apology if you will provide an example of the lies I invent about you.
Kursaal76
says...
5:36pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Brilliant idea. we need a lot more of them.
love seeing cars get tickets when they park on my drive. just ring the council up and along comes a spy car.
they are not a problem unless you break the law. shame they don't hang about more outside tesco kursaal fed up amount of times i have had to wait because of stupid people park there cars there.
love seeing cars get tickets when they park on my drive. just ring the council up and along comes a spy car.
they are not a problem unless you break the law. shame they don't hang about more outside tesco kursaal fed up amount of times i have had to wait because of stupid people park there cars there.
Kursaal76
says...
5:44pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Don't you get fed up typing about your stupid car tax Shoebury_Cyclist. do you have a life or do you just spend all day waiting for a new story on transport?
whateverhappened wrote:I know you're just trolling, but I'll post this anyway.
I know i shouldn t but ...... us drivers pay our road tax so should be able to park on the road or anywhere else cause car are great.
There is no such thing as 'road tax'.'Road tax' was abolished in 1937. We pay VEHICLE Excise Duty, or car tax, which is a tax on engine size or CO2 emissions. It has precisely nothing to do with any 'right' to be on the road. No-one in the entire UK pays to use the roads, except on a few toll roads and bridges/tunnels.
Roads are paid for through council tax, income tax and every other tax that goes into the central government pot. There is only ONE hypothecated tax in the UK: the television licence. Every other tax goes into the central pot and is distributed as the exchequer sees fit.
it gets so depressing seeing your comments over and over again on the same subjects no one cared the first time you wrote it so why do you keep trying?
people pay tax on there cars to use the road the money may not go one the roads but that is what they pay for. maybe you should pay tax for your stupid bike
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
5:47pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Kursaal76 wrote:No, people pay tax on their cars to pollute. That is why VED is levied on CO2 emissions or engine size. That is why electric and ultra-low emission vehicles pay ZERO VED.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Don't you get fed up typing about your stupid car tax Shoebury_Cyclist. do you have a life or do you just spend all day waiting for a new story on transport?
whateverhappened wrote:I know you're just trolling, but I'll post this anyway.
I know i shouldn t but ...... us drivers pay our road tax so should be able to park on the road or anywhere else cause car are great.
There is no such thing as 'road tax'.'Road tax' was abolished in 1937. We pay VEHICLE Excise Duty, or car tax, which is a tax on engine size or CO2 emissions. It has precisely nothing to do with any 'right' to be on the road. No-one in the entire UK pays to use the roads, except on a few toll roads and bridges/tunnels.
Roads are paid for through council tax, income tax and every other tax that goes into the central government pot. There is only ONE hypothecated tax in the UK: the television licence. Every other tax goes into the central pot and is distributed as the exchequer sees fit.
it gets so depressing seeing your comments over and over again on the same subjects no one cared the first time you wrote it so why do you keep trying?
people pay tax on there cars to use the road the money may not go one the roads but that is what they pay for. maybe you should pay tax for your stupid bike
VEHICLE Excise Duty. Not ROAD Excise Duty. The clue is in the name.
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
5:50pm Tue 5 Mar 13
stopmoaning1 wrote:Please show me where I have contradicted myself? YOU on the other hand, under that same story accused me of being wrong, then another poster pointed out to you that I was actually CORRECT, and you backtracked and changed your argument.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Well here is your only other comment on the matter
stopmoaning1 wrote:Actually I wasn't. I correctly pointed out that those houses already have garages and driveways, and that there was no need for a second dropped kerb for the same house.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:You seem to be quite vocal on this subject. However, when the ideal opportunity came up for you to support off street parking with the recent story on the drop kerbs, you were noticeably quiet, even I think to the point of raising a few objections.
Chris Flunk wrote:… and then those same drivers will complain about congestion and traffic not being able to move, in roads no longer wide enough for that traffic because they're clogged up with unused cars.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:If you obtained the correct licence from the council and had appropriate reflective markings, cones, safety lamps etc then I don't see that it would be breaking the law.
fletch12107 wrote:If I didn't have a garden, would it be fair for me to buy a shed and keep it in the road outside my house? No.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:So roads were built for people to travel on and the mode of transport most popularly used is a car. Now not everyone has a garage or off road parking to park their "unused property" ie car on so the logical place would be the road. So what little space is available for those who do not have a garage or off road facility (as road space taken by the aforementioned by means of run offs) should be available free of charge to the rest. If the roads are not for cars to park on as you say then why are councils making vast sums of profit by issuing parking permits and other fees?
fletch12107 wrote:No. Roads were built for people to travel on, not for people to store their unused property on.
Just leave zig zags outside schools and no parking at junctions and scrap all parking restrictions. I thought roads were built for cars to park on.
The same principle applies to cars. If you dan't have somewhere to keep one, don't buy one.
In the same way, by keeping a vehicle taxed and abiding by the highway code you are entitled to park anywhere on the PUBLIC highway.
Yes it is the PUBLIC Highway, a 'highway' for people to move along, for ALL the public to use.
It isn't there for people to fill up with their unused property. All on-street parking should be outlawed.
Why do you keep inventing lies about me?
Shoebury_Cyclist says...
4:53pm Thu 28 Feb 13
Those houses have garages, AND space in front of their garages. There is no need for the loss of more green space. It's a fine balance. Houselholds need to park their cars, but the ecology and flood plain has to be preserved.
Hardly supportive considering some of your other comments about people not owning cars unless they have somewhere to park them other than on the road.
And I don’t ‘keep inventing lies’ about you. It’s just that it’s difficult to keep up with your posts sometimes as you do tend to contradict yourself.
I would be very happy to offer an apology if you will provide an example of the lies I invent about you.
You didn't have the good manners to apologise to me though.
RobertFS
says...
6:28pm Tue 5 Mar 13
GentleGiant wrote:agreed!
If cars are parked illegally, then they should be ticketed. The problem is people are too lazy to walk a few hundred yards from a legal parking space to their destination. Sounds like more cars would be good if they cut down on illegal parking.
Kursaal76
says...
6:31pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:we know though and we still don't care! why not go to a website that value's your opinions?
Kursaal76 wrote:No, people pay tax on their cars to pollute. That is why VED is levied on CO2 emissions or engine size. That is why electric and ultra-low emission vehicles pay ZERO VED.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Don't you get fed up typing about your stupid car tax Shoebury_Cyclist. do you have a life or do you just spend all day waiting for a new story on transport?
whateverhappened wrote:I know you're just trolling, but I'll post this anyway.
I know i shouldn t but ...... us drivers pay our road tax so should be able to park on the road or anywhere else cause car are great.
There is no such thing as 'road tax'.'Road tax' was abolished in 1937. We pay VEHICLE Excise Duty, or car tax, which is a tax on engine size or CO2 emissions. It has precisely nothing to do with any 'right' to be on the road. No-one in the entire UK pays to use the roads, except on a few toll roads and bridges/tunnels.
Roads are paid for through council tax, income tax and every other tax that goes into the central government pot. There is only ONE hypothecated tax in the UK: the television licence. Every other tax goes into the central pot and is distributed as the exchequer sees fit.
it gets so depressing seeing your comments over and over again on the same subjects no one cared the first time you wrote it so why do you keep trying?
people pay tax on there cars to use the road the money may not go one the roads but that is what they pay for. maybe you should pay tax for your stupid bike
VEHICLE Excise Duty. Not ROAD Excise Duty. The clue is in the name.
Best tax they could bring out is bike exercise duty.
just reminded me my road tax is due next month.
Dinosaur_Jr
says...
6:44pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Dinosaur_Jr wrote:As you appear to still be active on this discussion I'll ask again.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Firstly can I say that I support these cars and the enforcement of parking restrictions. The majority of people who moan about these vehicles seem to be people who want to park illegally. And illegally - in most cases - means parking dangerously, putting people at risk.
Chris Flunk wrote:… and then those same drivers will complain about congestion and traffic not being able to move, in roads no longer wide enough for that traffic because they're clogged up with unused cars.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:If you obtained the correct licence from the council and had appropriate reflective markings, cones, safety lamps etc then I don't see that it would be breaking the law.
fletch12107 wrote:If I didn't have a garden, would it be fair for me to buy a shed and keep it in the road outside my house? No.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:So roads were built for people to travel on and the mode of transport most popularly used is a car. Now not everyone has a garage or off road parking to park their "unused property" ie car on so the logical place would be the road. So what little space is available for those who do not have a garage or off road facility (as road space taken by the aforementioned by means of run offs) should be available free of charge to the rest. If the roads are not for cars to park on as you say then why are councils making vast sums of profit by issuing parking permits and other fees?
fletch12107 wrote:No. Roads were built for people to travel on, not for people to store their unused property on.
Just leave zig zags outside schools and no parking at junctions and scrap all parking restrictions. I thought roads were built for cars to park on.
The same principle applies to cars. If you dan't have somewhere to keep one, don't buy one.
In the same way, by keeping a vehicle taxed and abiding by the highway code you are entitled to park anywhere on the PUBLIC highway.
Yes it is the PUBLIC Highway, a 'highway' for people to move along, for ALL the public to use.
It isn't there for people to fill up with their unused property. All on-street parking should be outlawed.
I also get extremely frustrated with people down my road who have a driveway but still park on the road because they are too lazy or feel it's their right to own 4 or 5 vehicles. However, to say that "all on street parking should be outlawed" is incredible obtuse.
Just because people may not be in a position to afford to live in a property which has no off-street parking - which is usually financial and therefore no fault of their own - should preclude them from having the same rights as everyone else.
As it is more likely that people on low income cannot afford to reside in a property which has provision for off street parking, your proposal would have the effect of negatively impacting poorer families. Whilst the wealthier would either not be effected or be in a position to adjust their situation.
Essentially, poor people cannot have cars.
stopmoaning1
says...
7:17pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:I see the point nicely side stepped again.
stopmoaning1 wrote:Please show me where I have contradicted myself? YOU on the other hand, under that same story accused me of being wrong, then another poster pointed out to you that I was actually CORRECT, and you backtracked and changed your argument.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Well here is your only other comment on the matter
stopmoaning1 wrote:Actually I wasn't. I correctly pointed out that those houses already have garages and driveways, and that there was no need for a second dropped kerb for the same house.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:You seem to be quite vocal on this subject. However, when the ideal opportunity came up for you to support off street parking with the recent story on the drop kerbs, you were noticeably quiet, even I think to the point of raising a few objections.
Chris Flunk wrote:… and then those same drivers will complain about congestion and traffic not being able to move, in roads no longer wide enough for that traffic because they're clogged up with unused cars.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:If you obtained the correct licence from the council and had appropriate reflective markings, cones, safety lamps etc then I don't see that it would be breaking the law.
fletch12107 wrote:If I didn't have a garden, would it be fair for me to buy a shed and keep it in the road outside my house? No.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:So roads were built for people to travel on and the mode of transport most popularly used is a car. Now not everyone has a garage or off road parking to park their "unused property" ie car on so the logical place would be the road. So what little space is available for those who do not have a garage or off road facility (as road space taken by the aforementioned by means of run offs) should be available free of charge to the rest. If the roads are not for cars to park on as you say then why are councils making vast sums of profit by issuing parking permits and other fees?
fletch12107 wrote:No. Roads were built for people to travel on, not for people to store their unused property on.
Just leave zig zags outside schools and no parking at junctions and scrap all parking restrictions. I thought roads were built for cars to park on.
The same principle applies to cars. If you dan't have somewhere to keep one, don't buy one.
In the same way, by keeping a vehicle taxed and abiding by the highway code you are entitled to park anywhere on the PUBLIC highway.
Yes it is the PUBLIC Highway, a 'highway' for people to move along, for ALL the public to use.
It isn't there for people to fill up with their unused property. All on-street parking should be outlawed.
Why do you keep inventing lies about me?
Shoebury_Cyclist says...
4:53pm Thu 28 Feb 13
Those houses have garages, AND space in front of their garages. There is no need for the loss of more green space. It's a fine balance. Houselholds need to park their cars, but the ecology and flood plain has to be preserved.
Hardly supportive considering some of your other comments about people not owning cars unless they have somewhere to park them other than on the road.
And I don’t ‘keep inventing lies’ about you. It’s just that it’s difficult to keep up with your posts sometimes as you do tend to contradict yourself.
I would be very happy to offer an apology if you will provide an example of the lies I invent about you.
You didn't have the good manners to apologise to me though.
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
8:01pm Tue 5 Mar 13
stopmoaning1 wrote:I answered your point. You accused me of contradicting myself when in fact the only person contradicting themselves, repeatedly, is you. I'm done with you. You are clearly a simpleton. From now on I ignore you.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:I see the point nicely side stepped again.
stopmoaning1 wrote:Please show me where I have contradicted myself? YOU on the other hand, under that same story accused me of being wrong, then another poster pointed out to you that I was actually CORRECT, and you backtracked and changed your argument.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Well here is your only other comment on the matter
stopmoaning1 wrote:Actually I wasn't. I correctly pointed out that those houses already have garages and driveways, and that there was no need for a second dropped kerb for the same house.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:You seem to be quite vocal on this subject. However, when the ideal opportunity came up for you to support off street parking with the recent story on the drop kerbs, you were noticeably quiet, even I think to the point of raising a few objections.
Chris Flunk wrote:… and then those same drivers will complain about congestion and traffic not being able to move, in roads no longer wide enough for that traffic because they're clogged up with unused cars.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:If you obtained the correct licence from the council and had appropriate reflective markings, cones, safety lamps etc then I don't see that it would be breaking the law.
fletch12107 wrote:If I didn't have a garden, would it be fair for me to buy a shed and keep it in the road outside my house? No.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:So roads were built for people to travel on and the mode of transport most popularly used is a car. Now not everyone has a garage or off road parking to park their "unused property" ie car on so the logical place would be the road. So what little space is available for those who do not have a garage or off road facility (as road space taken by the aforementioned by means of run offs) should be available free of charge to the rest. If the roads are not for cars to park on as you say then why are councils making vast sums of profit by issuing parking permits and other fees?
fletch12107 wrote:No. Roads were built for people to travel on, not for people to store their unused property on.
Just leave zig zags outside schools and no parking at junctions and scrap all parking restrictions. I thought roads were built for cars to park on.
The same principle applies to cars. If you dan't have somewhere to keep one, don't buy one.
In the same way, by keeping a vehicle taxed and abiding by the highway code you are entitled to park anywhere on the PUBLIC highway.
Yes it is the PUBLIC Highway, a 'highway' for people to move along, for ALL the public to use.
It isn't there for people to fill up with their unused property. All on-street parking should be outlawed.
Why do you keep inventing lies about me?
Shoebury_Cyclist says...
4:53pm Thu 28 Feb 13
Those houses have garages, AND space in front of their garages. There is no need for the loss of more green space. It's a fine balance. Houselholds need to park their cars, but the ecology and flood plain has to be preserved.
Hardly supportive considering some of your other comments about people not owning cars unless they have somewhere to park them other than on the road.
And I don’t ‘keep inventing lies’ about you. It’s just that it’s difficult to keep up with your posts sometimes as you do tend to contradict yourself.
I would be very happy to offer an apology if you will provide an example of the lies I invent about you.
You didn't have the good manners to apologise to me though.
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
8:07pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Kursaal76 wrote:I'm going nowhere. You don't tell anyone what to do. I will continue pointing out that there is no such thing as road tax for as long as it takes. The longer you waffle on about your imaginary tax, the longer I will tell you it doesn't exist.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:we know though and we still don't care! why not go to a website that value's your opinions?
Kursaal76 wrote:No, people pay tax on their cars to pollute. That is why VED is levied on CO2 emissions or engine size. That is why electric and ultra-low emission vehicles pay ZERO VED.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Don't you get fed up typing about your stupid car tax Shoebury_Cyclist. do you have a life or do you just spend all day waiting for a new story on transport?
whateverhappened wrote:I know you're just trolling, but I'll post this anyway.
I know i shouldn t but ...... us drivers pay our road tax so should be able to park on the road or anywhere else cause car are great.
There is no such thing as 'road tax'.'Road tax' was abolished in 1937. We pay VEHICLE Excise Duty, or car tax, which is a tax on engine size or CO2 emissions. It has precisely nothing to do with any 'right' to be on the road. No-one in the entire UK pays to use the roads, except on a few toll roads and bridges/tunnels.
Roads are paid for through council tax, income tax and every other tax that goes into the central government pot. There is only ONE hypothecated tax in the UK: the television licence. Every other tax goes into the central pot and is distributed as the exchequer sees fit.
it gets so depressing seeing your comments over and over again on the same subjects no one cared the first time you wrote it so why do you keep trying?
people pay tax on there cars to use the road the money may not go one the roads but that is what they pay for. maybe you should pay tax for your stupid bike
VEHICLE Excise Duty. Not ROAD Excise Duty. The clue is in the name.
Best tax they could bring out is bike exercise duty.
just reminded me my road tax is due next month.
Bicycles are zero emission vehicles any duty would be free, and the cost of administration would have to be added to the cost of your VED.
Tonybull1960
says...
8:16pm Tue 5 Mar 13
People don't give a ? Where they park it's all about me me most drivers are selfish and inconsiderate and lazy. If you park illegal you deserve to get a fine more more spy cars please to get rid of the ****
Kursaal76
says...
9:01pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:bikes maybe zero emissions but should be taxed and insured. i bet your pc keyboard is very warn on letters VED HA HA.
Kursaal76 wrote:I'm going nowhere. You don't tell anyone what to do. I will continue pointing out that there is no such thing as road tax for as long as it takes. The longer you waffle on about your imaginary tax, the longer I will tell you it doesn't exist.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:we know though and we still don't care! why not go to a website that value's your opinions?
Kursaal76 wrote:No, people pay tax on their cars to pollute. That is why VED is levied on CO2 emissions or engine size. That is why electric and ultra-low emission vehicles pay ZERO VED.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Don't you get fed up typing about your stupid car tax Shoebury_Cyclist. do you have a life or do you just spend all day waiting for a new story on transport?
whateverhappened wrote:I know you're just trolling, but I'll post this anyway.
I know i shouldn t but ...... us drivers pay our road tax so should be able to park on the road or anywhere else cause car are great.
There is no such thing as 'road tax'.'Road tax' was abolished in 1937. We pay VEHICLE Excise Duty, or car tax, which is a tax on engine size or CO2 emissions. It has precisely nothing to do with any 'right' to be on the road. No-one in the entire UK pays to use the roads, except on a few toll roads and bridges/tunnels.
Roads are paid for through council tax, income tax and every other tax that goes into the central government pot. There is only ONE hypothecated tax in the UK: the television licence. Every other tax goes into the central pot and is distributed as the exchequer sees fit.
it gets so depressing seeing your comments over and over again on the same subjects no one cared the first time you wrote it so why do you keep trying?
people pay tax on there cars to use the road the money may not go one the roads but that is what they pay for. maybe you should pay tax for your stupid bike
VEHICLE Excise Duty. Not ROAD Excise Duty. The clue is in the name.
Best tax they could bring out is bike exercise duty.
just reminded me my road tax is due next month.
Bicycles are zero emission vehicles any duty would be free, and the cost of administration would have to be added to the cost of your VED.
i can just imagine you are some wrinkly old man sitting on your computer looking through websites..... then all of a sudden you see the word ROAD TAX. then say Shoeburry cyclist to the rescue i must rid the world of the term "road tax" that was abolished some years ago! i only hope my V, E and D keys can handle a few more taps. your head sweating with nerves. yes! you've done it! another person you've have re-educated on VED! What would the world do without shoeburry cyclist VED Crusader!?
stopmoaning1
says...
9:19pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Interesting you’ve resorted to name calling now you’re on the back foot and can't answer in a constructive manner.
stopmoaning1 wrote:I answered your point. You accused me of contradicting myself when in fact the only person contradicting themselves, repeatedly, is you. I'm done with you. You are clearly a simpleton. From now on I ignore you.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:I see the point nicely side stepped again.
stopmoaning1 wrote:Please show me where I have contradicted myself? YOU on the other hand, under that same story accused me of being wrong, then another poster pointed out to you that I was actually CORRECT, and you backtracked and changed your argument.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Well here is your only other comment on the matter
stopmoaning1 wrote:Actually I wasn't. I correctly pointed out that those houses already have garages and driveways, and that there was no need for a second dropped kerb for the same house.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:You seem to be quite vocal on this subject. However, when the ideal opportunity came up for you to support off street parking with the recent story on the drop kerbs, you were noticeably quiet, even I think to the point of raising a few objections.
Chris Flunk wrote:… and then those same drivers will complain about congestion and traffic not being able to move, in roads no longer wide enough for that traffic because they're clogged up with unused cars.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:If you obtained the correct licence from the council and had appropriate reflective markings, cones, safety lamps etc then I don't see that it would be breaking the law.
fletch12107 wrote:If I didn't have a garden, would it be fair for me to buy a shed and keep it in the road outside my house? No.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:So roads were built for people to travel on and the mode of transport most popularly used is a car. Now not everyone has a garage or off road parking to park their "unused property" ie car on so the logical place would be the road. So what little space is available for those who do not have a garage or off road facility (as road space taken by the aforementioned by means of run offs) should be available free of charge to the rest. If the roads are not for cars to park on as you say then why are councils making vast sums of profit by issuing parking permits and other fees?
fletch12107 wrote:No. Roads were built for people to travel on, not for people to store their unused property on.
Just leave zig zags outside schools and no parking at junctions and scrap all parking restrictions. I thought roads were built for cars to park on.
The same principle applies to cars. If you dan't have somewhere to keep one, don't buy one.
In the same way, by keeping a vehicle taxed and abiding by the highway code you are entitled to park anywhere on the PUBLIC highway.
Yes it is the PUBLIC Highway, a 'highway' for people to move along, for ALL the public to use.
It isn't there for people to fill up with their unused property. All on-street parking should be outlawed.
Why do you keep inventing lies about me?
Shoebury_Cyclist says...
4:53pm Thu 28 Feb 13
Those houses have garages, AND space in front of their garages. There is no need for the loss of more green space. It's a fine balance. Houselholds need to park their cars, but the ecology and flood plain has to be preserved.
Hardly supportive considering some of your other comments about people not owning cars unless they have somewhere to park them other than on the road.
And I don’t ‘keep inventing lies’ about you. It’s just that it’s difficult to keep up with your posts sometimes as you do tend to contradict yourself.
I would be very happy to offer an apology if you will provide an example of the lies I invent about you.
You didn't have the good manners to apologise to me though.
stopmoaning1
says...
9:22pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:It really is just a turn of phrase. Interesting how the DVLA use the words TAX your car in order to keep it on a public road though.
Kursaal76 wrote:I'm going nowhere. You don't tell anyone what to do. I will continue pointing out that there is no such thing as road tax for as long as it takes. The longer you waffle on about your imaginary tax, the longer I will tell you it doesn't exist.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:we know though and we still don't care! why not go to a website that value's your opinions?
Kursaal76 wrote:No, people pay tax on their cars to pollute. That is why VED is levied on CO2 emissions or engine size. That is why electric and ultra-low emission vehicles pay ZERO VED.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Don't you get fed up typing about your stupid car tax Shoebury_Cyclist. do you have a life or do you just spend all day waiting for a new story on transport?
whateverhappened wrote:I know you're just trolling, but I'll post this anyway.
I know i shouldn t but ...... us drivers pay our road tax so should be able to park on the road or anywhere else cause car are great.
There is no such thing as 'road tax'.'Road tax' was abolished in 1937. We pay VEHICLE Excise Duty, or car tax, which is a tax on engine size or CO2 emissions. It has precisely nothing to do with any 'right' to be on the road. No-one in the entire UK pays to use the roads, except on a few toll roads and bridges/tunnels.
Roads are paid for through council tax, income tax and every other tax that goes into the central government pot. There is only ONE hypothecated tax in the UK: the television licence. Every other tax goes into the central pot and is distributed as the exchequer sees fit.
it gets so depressing seeing your comments over and over again on the same subjects no one cared the first time you wrote it so why do you keep trying?
people pay tax on there cars to use the road the money may not go one the roads but that is what they pay for. maybe you should pay tax for your stupid bike
VEHICLE Excise Duty. Not ROAD Excise Duty. The clue is in the name.
Best tax they could bring out is bike exercise duty.
just reminded me my road tax is due next month.
Bicycles are zero emission vehicles any duty would be free, and the cost of administration would have to be added to the cost of your VED.
Why don’t you write to them and tell them they are wrong as well
David Crown
says...
9:23pm Tue 5 Mar 13
More spy cars for me too!!!!!
Generally speaking car drivers are so so selfish and the truth is civil enforcement officers and spy cars save pedestrians, cyclists and motorists from injury and death. They are heroes in our community.
I will never take my custom to Printer and Cartridge Solutions, in Woodgrange Drive ever again and will urge friends and relatives to take the same reasoned approach and boycott them.
Well done to Lamby! I never thought I would agree with a Freemason but there we go.
Generally speaking car drivers are so so selfish and the truth is civil enforcement officers and spy cars save pedestrians, cyclists and motorists from injury and death. They are heroes in our community.
I will never take my custom to Printer and Cartridge Solutions, in Woodgrange Drive ever again and will urge friends and relatives to take the same reasoned approach and boycott them.
Well done to Lamby! I never thought I would agree with a Freemason but there we go.
David Crown
says...
9:37pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Would like to add that many cities in Europe are now adopting the 'right of way' consideration when it comes to cars, buses, pedestrians and cyclists. Essentially in major alterations to roads, and creation of new ones, pedestrians are being considered first over bicycles, then come buses and finally . . . . cars. Time to smell the coffee people, the day of the car is numbered! Eventually the EU will drag the UK kicking and screaming to sanity. Long live public transport and an end to the car.
Kursaal76
says...
9:39pm Tue 5 Mar 13
stopmoaning1 wrote:i wouldn't surprise me if he has wrote a letter to David cameron to tell him about it. i call it road tax because i pay tax for my car to be on the road. just like most of uk do.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:It really is just a turn of phrase. Interesting how the DVLA use the words TAX your car in order to keep it on a public road though.
Kursaal76 wrote:I'm going nowhere. You don't tell anyone what to do. I will continue pointing out that there is no such thing as road tax for as long as it takes. The longer you waffle on about your imaginary tax, the longer I will tell you it doesn't exist.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:we know though and we still don't care! why not go to a website that value's your opinions?
Kursaal76 wrote:No, people pay tax on their cars to pollute. That is why VED is levied on CO2 emissions or engine size. That is why electric and ultra-low emission vehicles pay ZERO VED.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Don't you get fed up typing about your stupid car tax Shoebury_Cyclist. do you have a life or do you just spend all day waiting for a new story on transport?
whateverhappened wrote:I know you're just trolling, but I'll post this anyway.
I know i shouldn t but ...... us drivers pay our road tax so should be able to park on the road or anywhere else cause car are great.
There is no such thing as 'road tax'.'Road tax' was abolished in 1937. We pay VEHICLE Excise Duty, or car tax, which is a tax on engine size or CO2 emissions. It has precisely nothing to do with any 'right' to be on the road. No-one in the entire UK pays to use the roads, except on a few toll roads and bridges/tunnels.
Roads are paid for through council tax, income tax and every other tax that goes into the central government pot. There is only ONE hypothecated tax in the UK: the television licence. Every other tax goes into the central pot and is distributed as the exchequer sees fit.
it gets so depressing seeing your comments over and over again on the same subjects no one cared the first time you wrote it so why do you keep trying?
people pay tax on there cars to use the road the money may not go one the roads but that is what they pay for. maybe you should pay tax for your stupid bike
VEHICLE Excise Duty. Not ROAD Excise Duty. The clue is in the name.
Best tax they could bring out is bike exercise duty.
just reminded me my road tax is due next month.
Bicycles are zero emission vehicles any duty would be free, and the cost of administration would have to be added to the cost of your VED.
Why don’t you write to them and tell them they are wrong as well
David Crown
says...
9:46pm Tue 5 Mar 13
I call it road tax too, but technically its vehicle excise duty. Back to topic??
southendshrimper
says...
10:04pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Why call them 'spy' cars? Think about it people they have a load of stickers all over them & a huge great big camera on top.
I hate the police
says...
10:10pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Scrap the twat5. There money making morons for our sh!t governement.
Kursaal76
says...
10:33pm Tue 5 Mar 13
I hate the police wrote:well if you don't break the law then they wont make any money will they? then southend council will have to scrap them.
Scrap the twat5. There money making morons for our sh!t governement.
David Crown
says...
11:01pm Tue 5 Mar 13
I hate the police wrote:Not bothered about the safety aspect then IHTP? Great retort K76.
Scrap the twat5. There money making morons for our sh!t governement.
stopmoaning1
says...
11:23am Wed 6 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:So where do you leave your bike if you go into a shop?
fletch12107 wrote:If I didn't have a garden, would it be fair for me to buy a shed and keep it in the road outside my house? No.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:So roads were built for people to travel on and the mode of transport most popularly used is a car. Now not everyone has a garage or off road parking to park their "unused property" ie car on so the logical place would be the road. So what little space is available for those who do not have a garage or off road facility (as road space taken by the aforementioned by means of run offs) should be available free of charge to the rest. If the roads are not for cars to park on as you say then why are councils making vast sums of profit by issuing parking permits and other fees?
fletch12107 wrote:No. Roads were built for people to travel on, not for people to store their unused property on.
Just leave zig zags outside schools and no parking at junctions and scrap all parking restrictions. I thought roads were built for cars to park on.
The same principle applies to cars. If you dan't have somewhere to keep one, don't buy one.
Sean4u
says...
12:19pm Wed 6 Mar 13
stopmoaning1 wrote:That's a very good point - one which invites a very weak argument based on comparative cost, the cost of charging small amounts and possibly confessions of obstructive tactics involving street furniture!
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:So where do you leave your bike if you go into a shop?
fletch12107 wrote:If I didn't have a garden, would it be fair for me to buy a shed and keep it in the road outside my house? No.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:So roads were built for people to travel on and the mode of transport most popularly used is a car. Now not everyone has a garage or off road parking to park their "unused property" ie car on so the logical place would be the road. So what little space is available for those who do not have a garage or off road facility (as road space taken by the aforementioned by means of run offs) should be available free of charge to the rest. If the roads are not for cars to park on as you say then why are councils making vast sums of profit by issuing parking permits and other fees?
fletch12107 wrote:No. Roads were built for people to travel on, not for people to store their unused property on.
Just leave zig zags outside schools and no parking at junctions and scrap all parking restrictions. I thought roads were built for cars to park on.
The same principle applies to cars. If you dan't have somewhere to keep one, don't buy one.
When I lived up north lots of the town-centre businesses I used (shops, cinema, pubs) had dedicated bike-locking furniture in their front walls. They were older, stone properties with higher front windowsills.
Nice shot.
Alekhine
says...
12:35pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Dedicated bike locking furniture - otherwise known as railings.
Dinosaur_Jr
says...
12:37pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Dinosaur_Jr wrote:This is the second time in recent weeks you have failed to respond to my request for you to validate your comments. This first being in relation to your outrageous and ignorant generalisation about footballers being 'druggies' and football fans being 'thugs'.
Dinosaur_Jr wrote:As you appear to still be active on this discussion I'll ask again.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Firstly can I say that I support these cars and the enforcement of parking restrictions. The majority of people who moan about these vehicles seem to be people who want to park illegally. And illegally - in most cases - means parking dangerously, putting people at risk.
Chris Flunk wrote:… and then those same drivers will complain about congestion and traffic not being able to move, in roads no longer wide enough for that traffic because they're clogged up with unused cars.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:If you obtained the correct licence from the council and had appropriate reflective markings, cones, safety lamps etc then I don't see that it would be breaking the law.
fletch12107 wrote:If I didn't have a garden, would it be fair for me to buy a shed and keep it in the road outside my house? No.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:So roads were built for people to travel on and the mode of transport most popularly used is a car. Now not everyone has a garage or off road parking to park their "unused property" ie car on so the logical place would be the road. So what little space is available for those who do not have a garage or off road facility (as road space taken by the aforementioned by means of run offs) should be available free of charge to the rest. If the roads are not for cars to park on as you say then why are councils making vast sums of profit by issuing parking permits and other fees?
fletch12107 wrote:No. Roads were built for people to travel on, not for people to store their unused property on.
Just leave zig zags outside schools and no parking at junctions and scrap all parking restrictions. I thought roads were built for cars to park on.
The same principle applies to cars. If you dan't have somewhere to keep one, don't buy one.
In the same way, by keeping a vehicle taxed and abiding by the highway code you are entitled to park anywhere on the PUBLIC highway.
Yes it is the PUBLIC Highway, a 'highway' for people to move along, for ALL the public to use.
It isn't there for people to fill up with their unused property. All on-street parking should be outlawed.
I also get extremely frustrated with people down my road who have a driveway but still park on the road because they are too lazy or feel it's their right to own 4 or 5 vehicles. However, to say that "all on street parking should be outlawed" is incredible obtuse.
Just because people may not be in a position to afford to live in a property which has no off-street parking - which is usually financial and therefore no fault of their own - should preclude them from having the same rights as everyone else.
As it is more likely that people on low income cannot afford to reside in a property which has provision for off street parking, your proposal would have the effect of negatively impacting poorer families. Whilst the wealthier would either not be effected or be in a position to adjust their situation.
Essentially, poor people cannot have cars.
Here you propose a draconian and selfish policy to ban all off street parking which would essentially impact the less wealthy. Essentially prohibiting poor people from owning cars.
Not responding to measured questions concerning your posts only serves to invalidate your comments on these discussion boards.
Oh, and by the way. Where do you put your bike when you pop in to the shops. If you leave it anywhere other than a designated place for cycles, then you instantly become a hypocrite.
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
2:20pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Sean4u wrote:It's a false comparison. I'm talking about people expecting to be permitted to leave their property in the road outside their homes. When at home my bicycles are stored on my property, not in the street out front.
stopmoaning1 wrote:That's a very good point - one which invites a very weak argument based on comparative cost, the cost of charging small amounts and possibly confessions of obstructive tactics involving street furniture!
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:So where do you leave your bike if you go into a shop?
fletch12107 wrote:If I didn't have a garden, would it be fair for me to buy a shed and keep it in the road outside my house? No.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:So roads were built for people to travel on and the mode of transport most popularly used is a car. Now not everyone has a garage or off road parking to park their "unused property" ie car on so the logical place would be the road. So what little space is available for those who do not have a garage or off road facility (as road space taken by the aforementioned by means of run offs) should be available free of charge to the rest. If the roads are not for cars to park on as you say then why are councils making vast sums of profit by issuing parking permits and other fees?
fletch12107 wrote:No. Roads were built for people to travel on, not for people to store their unused property on.
Just leave zig zags outside schools and no parking at junctions and scrap all parking restrictions. I thought roads were built for cars to park on.
The same principle applies to cars. If you dan't have somewhere to keep one, don't buy one.
When I lived up north lots of the town-centre businesses I used (shops, cinema, pubs) had dedicated bike-locking furniture in their front walls. They were older, stone properties with higher front windowsills.
Nice shot.
stopmoaning1
says...
2:24pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Dinosaur_Jr wrote:It seems SC is unable to validate a lot of comments when challenged. Instead resorting to name calling and abuse. Example below..
Dinosaur_Jr wrote:This is the second time in recent weeks you have failed to respond to my request for you to validate your comments. This first being in relation to your outrageous and ignorant generalisation about footballers being 'druggies' and football fans being 'thugs'.
Dinosaur_Jr wrote:As you appear to still be active on this discussion I'll ask again.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Firstly can I say that I support these cars and the enforcement of parking restrictions. The majority of people who moan about these vehicles seem to be people who want to park illegally. And illegally - in most cases - means parking dangerously, putting people at risk.
Chris Flunk wrote:… and then those same drivers will complain about congestion and traffic not being able to move, in roads no longer wide enough for that traffic because they're clogged up with unused cars.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:If you obtained the correct licence from the council and had appropriate reflective markings, cones, safety lamps etc then I don't see that it would be breaking the law.
fletch12107 wrote:If I didn't have a garden, would it be fair for me to buy a shed and keep it in the road outside my house? No.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:So roads were built for people to travel on and the mode of transport most popularly used is a car. Now not everyone has a garage or off road parking to park their "unused property" ie car on so the logical place would be the road. So what little space is available for those who do not have a garage or off road facility (as road space taken by the aforementioned by means of run offs) should be available free of charge to the rest. If the roads are not for cars to park on as you say then why are councils making vast sums of profit by issuing parking permits and other fees?
fletch12107 wrote:No. Roads were built for people to travel on, not for people to store their unused property on.
Just leave zig zags outside schools and no parking at junctions and scrap all parking restrictions. I thought roads were built for cars to park on.
The same principle applies to cars. If you dan't have somewhere to keep one, don't buy one.
In the same way, by keeping a vehicle taxed and abiding by the highway code you are entitled to park anywhere on the PUBLIC highway.
Yes it is the PUBLIC Highway, a 'highway' for people to move along, for ALL the public to use.
It isn't there for people to fill up with their unused property. All on-street parking should be outlawed.
I also get extremely frustrated with people down my road who have a driveway but still park on the road because they are too lazy or feel it's their right to own 4 or 5 vehicles. However, to say that "all on street parking should be outlawed" is incredible obtuse.
Just because people may not be in a position to afford to live in a property which has no off-street parking - which is usually financial and therefore no fault of their own - should preclude them from having the same rights as everyone else.
As it is more likely that people on low income cannot afford to reside in a property which has provision for off street parking, your proposal would have the effect of negatively impacting poorer families. Whilst the wealthier would either not be effected or be in a position to adjust their situation.
Essentially, poor people cannot have cars.
Here you propose a draconian and selfish policy to ban all off street parking which would essentially impact the less wealthy. Essentially prohibiting poor people from owning cars.
Not responding to measured questions concerning your posts only serves to invalidate your comments on these discussion boards.
Oh, and by the way. Where do you put your bike when you pop in to the shops. If you leave it anywhere other than a designated place for cycles, then you instantly become a hypocrite.
Shoebury_Cyclist says...
8:01pm Tue 5 Mar 13
I answered your point. You accused me of contradicting myself when in fact the only person contradicting themselves, repeatedly, is you. I'm done with you. You are clearly a simpleton. From now on I ignore you.
Rochford Rob
says...
3:43pm Wed 6 Mar 13
If roads were built for 'people to travel on' why was the M1 built and who for?
Furthermore, why were all the others built?
Like any goverment, if they can't make money out of it, they won't do it. But they do, don;t they?
Strange that.
Furthermore, why were all the others built?
Like any goverment, if they can't make money out of it, they won't do it. But they do, don;t they?
Strange that.
stopmoaning1
says...
3:51pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:So the dedicated bike locking furniture in the walls on the street outside the shops/cinema/pubs are different from the dedicated parking places in the street for cars are they?
Sean4u wrote:It's a false comparison. I'm talking about people expecting to be permitted to leave their property in the road outside their homes. When at home my bicycles are stored on my property, not in the street out front.
stopmoaning1 wrote:That's a very good point - one which invites a very weak argument based on comparative cost, the cost of charging small amounts and possibly confessions of obstructive tactics involving street furniture!
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:So where do you leave your bike if you go into a shop?
fletch12107 wrote:If I didn't have a garden, would it be fair for me to buy a shed and keep it in the road outside my house? No.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:So roads were built for people to travel on and the mode of transport most popularly used is a car. Now not everyone has a garage or off road parking to park their "unused property" ie car on so the logical place would be the road. So what little space is available for those who do not have a garage or off road facility (as road space taken by the aforementioned by means of run offs) should be available free of charge to the rest. If the roads are not for cars to park on as you say then why are councils making vast sums of profit by issuing parking permits and other fees?
fletch12107 wrote:No. Roads were built for people to travel on, not for people to store their unused property on.
Just leave zig zags outside schools and no parking at junctions and scrap all parking restrictions. I thought roads were built for cars to park on.
The same principle applies to cars. If you dan't have somewhere to keep one, don't buy one.
When I lived up north lots of the town-centre businesses I used (shops, cinema, pubs) had dedicated bike-locking furniture in their front walls. They were older, stone properties with higher front windowsills.
Nice shot.
Nicely dodged again, I didn’t ask where you left your bike when at home
Rochford Rob
says...
3:59pm Wed 6 Mar 13
So the dedicated bike locking furniture in the walls on the street outside the shops/cinema/pubs are different from the dedicated parking places in the street for cars are they?
Nicely dodged again, I didn’t ask where you left your bike when at home
Yes, they are totally different. 1. They tend to be on the pavement, not the road and 2. They are free.
Nicely dodged again, I didn’t ask where you left your bike when at home
Yes, they are totally different. 1. They tend to be on the pavement, not the road and 2. They are free.
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
4:03pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Rochford Rob wrote:And 3, there is nothing stopping you or anyone else from using a bicycle and saving money.
So the dedicated bike locking furniture in the walls on the street outside the shops/cinema/pubs are different from the dedicated parking places in the street for cars are they?
Nicely dodged again, I didn’t ask where you left your bike when at home
Yes, they are totally different. 1. They tend to be on the pavement, not the road and 2. They are free.
stopmoaning1
says...
4:08pm Wed 6 Mar 13
And dodged again
Ciaran mc
says...
4:35pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Of course you would agree
I agree.
Ciaran mc
says...
4:37pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:aslong as they pay road tax then let them park where the F*** they want legally!
fletch12107 wrote: Just leave zig zags outside schools and no parking at junctions and scrap all parking restrictions. I thought roads were built for cars to park on.No. Roads were built for people to travel on, not for people to store their unused property on.
Maverick06
says...
4:51pm Wed 6 Mar 13
David Crown wrote:Totally agree with your comments and Councillor Lamb.
More spy cars for me too!!!!! Generally speaking car drivers are so so selfish and the truth is civil enforcement officers and spy cars save pedestrians, cyclists and motorists from injury and death. They are heroes in our community. I will never take my custom to Printer and Cartridge Solutions, in Woodgrange Drive ever again and will urge friends and relatives to take the same reasoned approach and boycott them. Well done to Lamby! I never thought I would agree with a Freemason but there we go.
As for the Woodgrange Drive lot, they will never get another penny out of me or anybody in my family. We have always supported local business and if I new they were involved in all this I would have never shopped there!
If more customers become ex-customers they will have a lot more time on their hands to get their signs printed.
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
4:57pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Ciaran mc wrote:There is no such thing as 'road tax'.'Road tax' was abolished in 1937. We pay VEHICLE Excise Duty, or car tax, which is a pollution tax on engine size or CO2 emissions.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:aslong as they pay road tax then let them park where the F*** they want legally!
fletch12107 wrote: Just leave zig zags outside schools and no parking at junctions and scrap all parking restrictions. I thought roads were built for cars to park on.No. Roads were built for people to travel on, not for people to store their unused property on.
It has nothing to do with any 'right' to use roads or park on the roads. No-one in the entire UK pays to use the roads, except on a few toll roads and bridges/tunnels.
Maverick06
says...
5:19pm Wed 6 Mar 13
southendshrimper wrote:All people want to do is argue with Shoebury_Cyclist about Road Tax or what ever it's called. The article is about CCTV cars, so why cant people stick to the point?
Why call them 'spy' cars? Think about it people they have a load of stickers all over them & a huge great big camera on top.
It's either agree, disagree, don't know or a new idea!
At least that way people would have some idea about what the general feeling is in Southend. Most off the comments are irrelevant to the article!
Well just for the record, they get my support as I believe they do a good job and help to stop the anti social parkers in Southend.
stopmoaning1
says...
5:30pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:According to the DVLA, I pay a tax that allows me to use my car on a public road.
Ciaran mc wrote:There is no such thing as 'road tax'.'Road tax' was abolished in 1937. We pay VEHICLE Excise Duty, or car tax, which is a pollution tax on engine size or CO2 emissions.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:aslong as they pay road tax then let them park where the F*** they want legally!
fletch12107 wrote: Just leave zig zags outside schools and no parking at junctions and scrap all parking restrictions. I thought roads were built for cars to park on.No. Roads were built for people to travel on, not for people to store their unused property on.
It has nothing to do with any 'right' to use roads or park on the roads. No-one in the entire UK pays to use the roads, except on a few toll roads and bridges/tunnels.
Using the road also includes parking where ever I like as long as it is in a place that is a legal and lawfully designated place.
When I park my car in a legal and lawfully designated place, it does not become unused property (your comment - No. Roads were built for people to travel on, not for people to store their unused property on.)
By the way, where do you leave you bike if you go into a shop? If you leave it locked up somewhere, in a cycle rack say, why do you not consider that to be storing your unused property in a public area, the upkeep of which I pay for in my Council Tax.
Ready?…Duck!
Nebs
says...
5:52pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:I wonder what would happen if a government decided to agree with you, and banned all on street parking.
fletch12107 wrote:No. Roads were built for people to travel on, not for people to store their unused property on.
Just leave zig zags outside schools and no parking at junctions and scrap all parking restrictions. I thought roads were built for cars to park on.
Dinosaur_Jr
says...
10:02pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Nebs wrote:My point exactly. The self confessed Socialist (which I have no problem with) wants to introduce a policy which would stop poorer people owning vehicles.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:I wonder what would happen if a government decided to agree with you, and banned all on street parking.
fletch12107 wrote:No. Roads were built for people to travel on, not for people to store their unused property on.
Just leave zig zags outside schools and no parking at junctions and scrap all parking restrictions. I thought roads were built for cars to park on.
Hypocrisy beyond belief. But that said the form of governance he espouses never stopped short of a one rule for them policy.
Nebs
says...
12:40am Thu 7 Mar 13
Dinosaur_Jr wrote:Yes, we established that on another thread. He was also happy to put a million people on the dole. Don't call him a socialist, he is a tory, happy for people to lose their jobs so as he can get to work 5 minutes quicker is not the thinking of a socialist.
Nebs wrote:My point exactly. The self confessed Socialist (which I have no problem with) wants to introduce a policy which would stop poorer people owning vehicles.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:I wonder what would happen if a government decided to agree with you, and banned all on street parking.
fletch12107 wrote:No. Roads were built for people to travel on, not for people to store their unused property on.
Just leave zig zags outside schools and no parking at junctions and scrap all parking restrictions. I thought roads were built for cars to park on.
Hypocrisy beyond belief. But that said the form of governance he espouses never stopped short of a one rule for them policy.
jodiesardina
says...
1:18pm Thu 7 Mar 13
Funny how everyone that's commenting on this have plenty of time to sit here and make judgement on the government, police etc, when they are just doing what we WORKERS like to call a JOB! You lot should try it some time! Just a little tip to stop you getting square eyes!
BinDipper
says...
2:13pm Thu 7 Mar 13
And quote "They are not spy cars, they are CCTV cars and they manage to get about the town and prevent so much more than ordinary officers might be able to do" -
Yes, they prevent people going about their daily business, prevent disabled people being fully mobile, they prevent fun and joy and a happy life through FEAR.
They are PUNISHMENT cars that show no discretion.
Problematic parking situations are not always black and white. Broken down car? Tough - have a ticket! Flat tyre? Tough - have a ticket! Dropping off elderly relative with a wheelchair right outside where they need to be? Tough - have a ticket! All of the above would be given some grace time by a HUMAN traffic warden, plus they would be jobholders meaning they pay tax and benefit the economy through spending their wages.
The world is going mad(der). It makes my blood boil.
Yes, they prevent people going about their daily business, prevent disabled people being fully mobile, they prevent fun and joy and a happy life through FEAR.
They are PUNISHMENT cars that show no discretion.
Problematic parking situations are not always black and white. Broken down car? Tough - have a ticket! Flat tyre? Tough - have a ticket! Dropping off elderly relative with a wheelchair right outside where they need to be? Tough - have a ticket! All of the above would be given some grace time by a HUMAN traffic warden, plus they would be jobholders meaning they pay tax and benefit the economy through spending their wages.
The world is going mad(der). It makes my blood boil.
Red Under Your Bed
says...
3:27pm Thu 7 Mar 13
BinDipper wrote:Them cars dont drive themselfs, so wages are earnt and spent.
And quote "They are not spy cars, they are CCTV cars and they manage to get about the town and prevent so much more than ordinary officers might be able to do" -
Yes, they prevent people going about their daily business, prevent disabled people being fully mobile, they prevent fun and joy and a happy life through FEAR.
They are PUNISHMENT cars that show no discretion.
Problematic parking situations are not always black and white. Broken down car? Tough - have a ticket! Flat tyre? Tough - have a ticket! Dropping off elderly relative with a wheelchair right outside where they need to be? Tough - have a ticket! All of the above would be given some grace time by a HUMAN traffic warden, plus they would be jobholders meaning they pay tax and benefit the economy through spending their wages.
The world is going mad(der). It makes my blood boil.
I like them. We shuld have more. They only book ilegal parkers.
Red Under Your Bed
says...
3:28pm Thu 7 Mar 13
jodiesardina wrote:And what you diuyn then? Get a job yorself.
Funny how everyone that's commenting on this have plenty of time to sit here and make judgement on the government, police etc, when they are just doing what we WORKERS like to call a JOB! You lot should try it some time! Just a little tip to stop you getting square eyes!
jodiesardina
says...
4:10pm Thu 7 Mar 13
Red Under Your Bed wrote:If you were able to read (as well as spell properly) you would have read that I, myself am a worker.
jodiesardina wrote:And what you diuyn then? Get a job yorself.
Funny how everyone that's commenting on this have plenty of time to sit here and make judgement on the government, police etc, when they are just doing what we WORKERS like to call a JOB! You lot should try it some time! Just a little tip to stop you getting square eyes!
Red Under Your Bed
says...
4:51pm Thu 7 Mar 13
jodiesardina wrote:Course you are, thats why your on here all day.
Red Under Your Bed wrote:If you were able to read (as well as spell properly) you would have read that I, myself am a worker.
jodiesardina wrote:And what you diuyn then? Get a job yorself.
Funny how everyone that's commenting on this have plenty of time to sit here and make judgement on the government, police etc, when they are just doing what we WORKERS like to call a JOB! You lot should try it some time! Just a little tip to stop you getting square eyes!
Alekhine
says...
5:36pm Thu 7 Mar 13
Red Under Your Bed wrote:I hear the sound of tumbleweed blowing through the high street.
BinDipper wrote: And quote "They are not spy cars, they are CCTV cars and they manage to get about the town and prevent so much more than ordinary officers might be able to do" - Yes, they prevent people going about their daily business, prevent disabled people being fully mobile, they prevent fun and joy and a happy life through FEAR. They are PUNISHMENT cars that show no discretion. Problematic parking situations are not always black and white. Broken down car? Tough - have a ticket! Flat tyre? Tough - have a ticket! Dropping off elderly relative with a wheelchair right outside where they need to be? Tough - have a ticket! All of the above would be given some grace time by a HUMAN traffic warden, plus they would be jobholders meaning they pay tax and benefit the economy through spending their wages. The world is going mad(der). It makes my blood boil.Them cars dont drive themselfs, so wages are earnt and spent. I like them. We shuld have more. They only book ilegal parkers.
Brian Warrens
says...
11:11pm Thu 7 Mar 13
There is no issue with yellow lines, parking rules, etc, etc. Where there seems to be an issue is the feeling of 'Big Brother'. The vehicular intrusion is an oppression for most of us, and despite the best intentions the council may have intended, surely they must see that Southend hosts a parking problem that takes its origin from the 1980's when planning departments allowed the development of house conversions into flats and in roads that can never cope with the demand for on road parking, for which so many residents are frustrated. The spy cars represent so much that is bad from this councils past, and has become a target for where the future has no easy solution.
Ed in
says...
8:24am Sun 10 Mar 13
Rochford Rob wrote:Yes but isn’t the pavement for the use of pedestrians and not for the storage of "unused property" as a certain person put it..........
So the dedicated bike locking furniture in the walls on the street outside the shops/cinema/pubs are different from the dedicated parking places in the street for cars are they?
Nicely dodged again, I didn’t ask where you left your bike when at home
Yes, they are totally different. 1. They tend to be on the pavement, not the road and 2. They are free.
Shoebury_Cyclist says...
7:56am Tue 5 Mar 13