MSE News: Wheel clamping ban moves closer

George_Michael

Isn't it amazing how some people can change their opinions so quickly.

All we've had over the past couple of days is how good the new "freedoms bill" is, and how it will help the poor downtrodden motorists, but now all the facts are starting to come to light, many posters are starting to realise that their comments were far too premature and they want to lobby their MP's to get it changed.

All in all it cannot come in soon enough.

At the end of the day the legalised extortion and theft that is clamping is now ending. And not before time.

Everybody who supports the ban should write a note of thanks to Lynne Featherstone for having the courage to take on and face down the pro-clamping lobby

And today there are people wanting to write to her to get her to change the bill.

thank goodness, the clampers days are numbered.

can't come soon enough!

if you don't like the situation, tough adapt like others have too !

So are the posters who made those comments shown above (and they are only a few of many), going to have the guts to stand up and admit that they made a mistake and that the bill isn't such a good deal for illegal parkers after all?

Spartacus_Mills

George_Michael wrote: »

So are the posters who made those comments shown above (and they are only a few of many), going to have the guts to stand up and admit that they made a mistake and that the bill isn't such a good deal for illegal parkers after all?

Oh dear. You would not do very well in your school debating society.

You are using the word illegal when you clearly have no understanding of its meaning.

There is a difference in the position on wanting rid of clamping, which most people in this forum want and taking issue with aspects of a bill which has been published. However the bill is not law. It has been published and will go through various consultation processes.

trisontana

George_Michael wrote: »

So are the posters who made those comments shown above (and they are only a few of many), going to have the guts to stand up and admit that they made a mistake and that the bill isn't such a good deal for illegal parkers after all?

What is this "illegal parking" of which you speak?

ripped_off_driver

George_Michael wrote: »

So are the posters who made those comments shown above (and they are only a few of many), going to have the guts to stand up and admit that they made a mistake and that the bill isn't such a good deal for illegal parkers after all?

Ha, ha, I think I may have made some of those comments and I fully stand by them. The ending of the semi-criminal act that is clamping is much welcomed, except by knucklehead parasites who like to throw their pie nourished weight around.

What we are now talking about, and from your message I understand that you are a little slow on the uptake, is an entirely different thing -a grubby, backroom deal negotiated with PPC representatives as part of the ban. This has never appeared in any of the publicity for the clamping ban. In these circumstances, it is entirely right and proper to lobby on this as we would not want parliament to make a mistake and replace one scam with another. After all it is our civic duty to offer advice when the government has been taken in by a bunch of chancers to point out the error of their ways.

trisontana

There is very critical article about this matter in the "Ingear" section of today's Sunday Times. Here are a couple of paraphrased quotes:-

The extended liability (that of the RK) runs counter to the spirit of the Protection of Freedoms Bill, the aim of which, the government has boasted, is to "restore hard-won British liberties.

Critics say that it removes a fundamental tenet of freedom because it it allows one person (a landowner) to demand money from another (car owner) who may not have received any goods or services

And (talking about the appeals system):-

Critics say that the new system will be unfair because the BPA consists of companies that have a vested interest in taking money from motorists. The appeals system will be run by the BPA so this creates a "massive conflict of interest" according to a spokesman from the AA. "I think it will lead to a lot of disputes. a lot of bailiffs and debt-collectors letters, and the public will not have an independent appeals service. I am quite shocked"

Flyboy152

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

Oh dear. You would not do very well in your school debating society.

You are using the word illegal when you clearly have no understanding of its meaning.

There is a difference in the position on wanting rid of clamping, which most people in this forum want and taking issue with aspects of a bill which has been published. However the bill is not law. It has been published and will go through various consultation processes.

trisontana wrote: »

What is this "illegal parking" of which you speak?

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

Ha, ha, I think I may have made some of those comments and I fully stand by them. The ending of the semi-criminal act that is clamping is much welcomed, except by knucklehead parasites who like to throw their pie nourished weight around.

What we are now talking about, and from your message I understand that you are a little slow on the uptake, is an entirely different thing -a grubby, backroom deal negotiated with PPC representatives as part of the ban. This has never appeared in any of the publicity for the clamping ban. In these circumstances, it is entirely right and proper to lobby on this as we would not want parliament to make a mistake and replace one scam with another. After all it is our civic duty to offer advice when the government has been taken in by a bunch of chancers to point out the error of their ways.

Oh dear, yet again, the MSE parking m4fia are attacking yet another dissenter. Someone who doesn't agree with their point of view and they all shoot him down, instead of engaging in proper adult debate.

Flyboy152

trisontana wrote: »

There is very critical article about this matter in the "Ingear" section of today's Sunday Times. Here are a couple of paraphrased quotes:-

The extended liability (that of the RK) runs counter to the spirit of the Protection of Freedoms Bill, the aim of which, the government has boasted, is to "restore hard-won British liberties.

Critics say that it removes a fundamental tenet of freedom because it it allows one person (a landowner) to demand money from another (car owner) who may not have received any goods or services

Err....apart from the unauthorised use of someones private property of course.

And (talking about the appeals system):-

Critics say that the new system will be unfair because the BPA consists of companies that have a vested interest in taking money from motorists. The appeals system will be run by the BPA so this creates a "massive conflict of interest" according to a spokesman from the AA. "I think it will lead to a lot of disputes. a lot of bailiffs and debt-collectors letters, and the public will not have an independent appeals service. I am quite shocked"

Well, they shouldn't park on someone else's property, without permission, should they. If they went to a proper car park, like the vast majority of other drivers, they wouldn't have anything to worry about.

trisontana

Flyboy152 wrote: »

[/I]

Err....apart from the unauthorised use of someones private property of course.



Well, they shouldn't park on someone else's property, without permission, should they. If they went to a proper car park, like the vast majority of other drivers, they wouldn't have anything to worry about.

You still don't get it do you? That first quote is talking about pursuing the registered keeper of the vehicle who may have had nothing to do with parking the car. This is called "Privity":-

The doctrine of privity in the common law of contract provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to it.


(I.E The driver and landowner.)

The second quote is about the unfairness of the proposed "appeals" process which will be run by the BPA, an organization made up of PPCs. Not what you would call independent by a long way.


Most people do park on "proper" car-parks, such as in supermarkets and retail centres, but they still get hounded by PPCs for breaking their silly "rules" such as having one wheel touching the line, or for staying more than two hours in a retail complex that might have forty shops.

trisontana

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Oh dear, yet again, the MSE parking m4fia are attacking yet another dissenter. Someone who doesn't agree with their point of view and they all shoot him down, instead of engaging in proper adult debate.

You mean such as pointing out that parking on private land is not "illegal" because no statute law has been broken.

ripped_off_driver

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Oh dear, yet again, the MSE parking m4fia are attacking yet another dissenter. Someone who doesn't agree with their point of view and they all shoot him down, instead of engaging in proper adult debate.

Pot, kettle and black in abundance. From someone who is repeatedly told that clamping is ending and to get used to it and secure his land, but keeps on carping and !!!!!ing that only clamping works. Hardly the shining guarantor of adult debate.