MSE News: Wheel clamping to be banned on private land

lucylucky

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

Indeed the ripped offness and the driveryness may well be separate.

But to lighten the mood, and so that some do not get too obsessed with who I am, there is an amusing thread on Pepipoo at the moment suggesting alternative jobs for clampers:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=54013&pid=498435&st=0&#entry498435

Don't say we never do anything for this fine and upstanding bunch of our fellow citizens now that they face working for a living.

And my point was that sometimes you have to look at things in an alternative way as one's first assumption or potential solution to a problem may not always be the correct one.;)

liam8282

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

Indeed the ripped offness and the driveryness may well be separate.

Ripped, because you are like the Hulk when you think off clampers, except you turn yellow (to match the clamps), and rip out of your clothes (Hulk style).

Off, because you are totally switched off to other peoples opinions.

Driver, that is your weapon of choice when you go on your vigilante rampages against clampers. You keep a golf driver handy at all times.

lucylucky

liam8282 wrote: »

AlexisV some sensible ideas, but they all cost time and money.

They're also reliant on appealing to the offending persons better nature, because as has been covered nothing is enforceable with regard to parking on private land.

The answer, which will also cost time and money, is to install barriers of some sort. Prevention being better than a cure as ever.

Even although you did post this "Installing barriers is no solution for a business that has a private car park." which is factually incorrect.

liam8282

lucylucky wrote: »

And my point was that sometimes you have to look at things in an alternative way as one's first assumption or potential solution to a problem may not always be the correct one.;)

That is probably the most sensible comment you have made, if you only you practiced it too.

lucylucky

liam8282 wrote: »

Ripped, because you are like the Hulk when you think off clampers, except you turn yellow (to match the clamps), and rip out of your clothes (Hulk style).

Off, because you are totally switched off to other peoples opinions.

Driver, that is your weapon of choice when you go on your vigilante rampages against clampers. You keep a golf driver handy at all times.

And you criticise those who have nothing to add to the discussion.
What irony.

AlexisV

Anything will take time and money unfortunately.

But your signage is obviously being ignored, so it might as well not exist.

Who owns the building? Can they not be tempted to pay a couple of hundred for some new signs?

liam8282

lucylucky wrote: »

The answer, which will also cost time and money, is to install barriers of some sort. Prevention being better than a cure as ever.

Even although you did post this "Installing barriers is no solution for a business that has a private car park." which is factually incorrect.

No it is not incorrect, not all business can install barriers. Just as all business cannot install posts, all business cannot install gates, all business cannot employ parking attendants.

I am not saying it will not work for SOME, but not ALL, as you put it.

liam8282

lucylucky wrote: »

And you criticise those who have nothing to add to the discussion.
What irony.

If you can't beat em, join em.

lucylucky

liam8282 wrote: »

No it is not incorrect, not all business can install barriers. Just as all business cannot install posts, all business cannot install gates, all business cannot employ parking attendants.

I am not saying it will not work for SOME, but not ALL, as you put it.

I used your words not mine - you said "Installing barriers is no solution for a business that has a private car park."

It can be a solution. You stated it could not be a solution, but then perhaps you did not mean this.

Post #7 if you want to check

liam8282

lucylucky wrote: »

I used your words not mine - you said "Installing barriers is no solution for a business that has a private car park."

It can be a solution. You stated it could not be a solution, but then perhaps you did not mean this.

Post #7 if you want to check

Really, have I not elaborated on this enough for you distinguish the difference between different car parks.

The post #7 was in response to #3, said the definitive solution for all companies was to install barriers.

I replied as you quoted. Maybe I should have put not the solution for all companies, but for the average person it is clear what the posts meaning was.

For the pedantic people, I stand corrected if needs be.

Maybe it should have read:

"Installing barriers is no solution for ALL businessES that haVE a private car park."

Is that better?