Legion Group PCN

d123

Flyboy152 wrote: »

But not towing away. However, I don't trust "Dave" and his lackeys to ever follow through on any promise they make, so I think we will be okay for a while yet.

Towing away will be illegal as well, it's going to be part of the "Freedom Bill" so it will be happening.

Flyboy152

d123 wrote: »

Towing away will be illegal as well, it's going to be part of the "Freedom Bill" so it will be happening.

Really? So I can park on Sirdan's drive and he can't do anything about it? Cool. :cool:

Flyboy152

Flyboy152 wrote: »

But not towing away. However, I don't trust "Dave" and his lackeys to ever follow through on any promise they make, so I think we will be okay for a while yet.

After having a look at the progress of this so-called "Freedom Bill," it seems to have been "kicked into the long grass." Oh dear!

trisontana

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Really? So I can park on Sirdan's drive and he can't do anything about it? Cool. :cool:

Oh look , another sighting of "what If I parked on your drive?" old chestnut.

Sirdan

trisontana wrote: »

Oh look , another sighting of "what If I parked on your drive?" old chestnut.

It may be an old chestnut to you ..but it intrigues me .

Are you able to give a concise answer as to what my options (legal ones that is ) are if this actually happened ?

rjustice

Originally Posted by Flyboy152
The implications from virtually every post that has supported the OP in ignoring the notice, has been that they should regard labeled bays for the disabled as anything other than a lie and should be ignored. The OP has admitted that his wife ignored the disabled bay notice, because she was too lazy to find somewhere else to park.

If you read my posts properly the reason my wife parked in 1 of several vacant disabled bays outside a closed nursery school was not because she is *lazy* but because the only alternative was a poorly lit overflow car park some distance away which being a lone female she doesn't feel safe using after dark. She is not in the habit of using disabled bays but in these circumstances felt she had little option. Anyway whether you agree or not is of no importance.

i would like to thank everyone for their comments and will certainly ignore any letters that arrive from the PPC.

Flyboy152

rjustice wrote: »

Originally Posted by Flyboy152
The implications from virtually every post that has supported the OP in ignoring the notice, has been that they should regard labeled bays for the disabled as anything other than a lie and should be ignored. The OP has admitted that his wife ignored the disabled bay notice, because she was too lazy to find somewhere else to park.

If you read my posts properly the reason my wife parked in 1 of several vacant disabled bays outside a closed nursery school was not because she is *lazy* but because the only alternative was a poorly lit overflow car park some distance away which being a lone female she doesn't feel safe using after dark. She is not in the habit of using disabled bays but in these circumstances felt she had little option. Anyway whether you agree or not is of no importance.

i would like to thank everyone for their comments and will certainly ignore any letters that arrive from the PPC.

So, without actually knowing the true legal position, she parked in a bay which, as far as she knew, was designated for a disabled driver? It doesn't matter what other parking was or was not available, she parked in a space that would normally be allocated for someone who has reduced mobility, she knew that what she was doing was wrong, but thought, "to heck with it, I'll take a space that I am not entitled to, because my purpose has priority." If it was a street and there double yellow lines or worse, zig-zag lines, would she have parked there?

rjustice

Flyboy152 wrote: »

So, without actually knowing the true legal position, she parked in a bay which, as far as she knew, was designated for a disabled driver? It doesn't matter what other parking was or was not available, she parked in a space that would normally be allocated for someone who has reduced mobility, she knew that what she was doing was wrong, but thought, "to heck with it, I'll take a space that I am not entitled to, because my purpose has priority." If it was a street and there double yellow lines or worse, zig-zag lines, would she have parked there?

The answer to your last question is no she wouldn't. I have already explained the situation, unfortunately you don't seem able to comprehend, if you think what she did was wrong so be it, as I've already said your opinion is irrelevant to me.

Again thanks to everyone else who took the trouble to actually answer my post for their helpful advice.

Flyboy152

rjustice wrote: »

The answer to your last question is no she wouldn't. I have already explained the situation, unfortunately you don't seem able to comprehend, if you think what she did was wrong so be it, as I've already said your opinion is irrelevant to me.

Again thanks to everyone else who took the trouble to actually answer my post for their helpful advice.

So, why did she park in a space she knew was meant for disabled people? What moral justification did she apply, to exempt herself from her responsibility, to not use a space she had no need for and that would have prevented someone using it, who really did need it?

Sirdan

rjustice wrote: »

The answer to your last question is no she wouldn't. I have already explained the situation, unfortunately you don't seem able to comprehend, if you think what she did was wrong so be it, as I've already said your opinion is irrelevant to me.

Again thanks to everyone else who took the trouble to actually answer my post for their helpful advice.

Might I suggest that you ignore Flyboy from now on ..I know I shall be.