ASDA confirm that they get share of all revenue got from TCP's PCNs

RENEGADE_2

Webby claimed to have reported abuse of Parent and Child facility, not disabled. Where was his proof is the question. You see the driver getting out of a vehicle parked in P&C and notice he is alone. Is it not possible that his wife and child have gone shopping and are soon to be fetched with all the bags???

Flyboy152

RENEGADE wrote: »

Webby claimed to have reported abuse of Parent and Child facility, not disabled. Where was his proof is the question. You see the driver getting out of a vehicle parked in P&C and notice he is alone. Is it not possible that his wife and child have gone shopping and are soon to be fetched with all the bags???

It is not up to him to prove anything.

MDBJ

Flyboy152 wrote: »

I do not disagree with the main thrust of your remarks. I abhor the tactics that some parking companies resort to, to extract money out of people. But, my point on this thread has been one of support for those who struggle every day with mobility issues, but have to either abandon or curtail shopping trips, or just struggle on, because some selfish twit has parked in a bay, to which they were not entitled and comes on a internet forum to whine about getting caught and then have people tell them that they shouldn't bother feeling any kind of moral responsibility, because the bays are only way for the supermarket to extort money out of them.

As a parent of disabled child, I know how important it is to be able to park close to the entrance of a supermarket, safe in the knowledge that any risks inherent with being in car park are greatly reduced, by the shorter distance to safety.

But this is exactly my point. I might be disabled but I am not entitled to use a disabled space at supermarkets because I do not have a BB, do not therefore satisfy their arbitrary and only defining criterion, cannot therefore legitimately use the space and are therefore liable to an arbitrary penalty.

The supreme irony is that the Equality Act (and the Disability Discrimination Act before it) defined disability and obliged/obliges organisations such as supermarkets to make provision for the disabled. This means that they have had to create sufficient car parking spaces (amongst other things) for the use of the disabled of which I am one. The only problem then is that they are using the, now, extremely restrictive BB scheme as the sole criterion thus excluding from those extra spaces the very people they were intended to be used by. How crazy is that?

Yes, we know that any shop can admit who they like, when they like but generally speaking in those cases when people are refused entry this relates to their behaviour. I am polite to staff, I always pay and I neither steal goods nor damage them. However, I cannot walk very well or very far but was unaware that because I have to use a stick and use store wheelchairs to get around large shops that this was now a behavioural issue.

And where will such arbitrary measures cease? Are they going to restrict the use of store wheelchairs or disabled toilets to BB holders? Might they decide next week that all those wearing jeans will be refused admission or all 4x4's will be banned from their car parks? Whilst you might argue that I am being petty, from this end it doesn't look that way.

oldone_2

Flyboy152 wrote: »

And yet there are far more abusers of family and disabled parking bays than there are of contract law

Please could you post a non PPC link that shows this is so.

oldone_2

Flyboy152 wrote: »

It is not up to him to prove anything.

But it is acceptable for him to report motorists he perceives as breaking the 'rules'

Flyboy152

oldone wrote: »

But it is acceptable for him to report motorists he perceives as breaking the 'rules'

Why shouldn't he? Would you report someone, if you saw them breaking into a house?

Flyboy152

will-in-estoril wrote: »

I note the continual use of the word 'm4fia', directed at posters on this thread.

1. The M4fia do not support the rule of law; rather they advocate, use and condone vigilante actions outside the law.
2. They cover for those in their own 'family'.

Now, this sounds like a definition more suited to the grovelling ppc apologists, does it not? Moral of the story: choose your language (and grammar and law text books) carefully.

And you have successfully described the core members of this sub-forum; congratulations.

oldone_2

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Why shouldn't he? Would you report someone, if you saw them breaking into a house?

Not relevant. If I saw a peson parking in a disabled bay, I am not medically qualified to say if he is breaking the 'rules' or not.

Incidentally I am still waiting for you to prove your statement that more people park in a disabled bay that are not entitled to, than those who break a contract.
Or did you make it up to try and bolster very weak arguments.

Flyboy152

MDBJ wrote: »

But this is exactly my point. I might be disabled but I am not entitled to use a disabled space at supermarkets because I do not have a BB, do not therefore satisfy their arbitrary and only defining criterion, cannot therefore legitimately use the space and are therefore liable to an arbitrary penalty.

The supreme irony is that the Equality Act (and the Disability Discrimination Act before it) defined disability and obliged/obliges organisations such as supermarkets to make provision for the disabled. This means that they have had to create sufficient car parking spaces (amongst other things) for the use of the disabled of which I am one. The only problem then is that they are using the, now, extremely restrictive BB scheme as the sole criterion thus excluding from those extra spaces the very people they were intended to be used by. How crazy is that?

Yes, we know that any shop can admit who they like, when they like but generally speaking in those cases when people are refused entry this relates to their behaviour. I am polite to staff, I always pay and I neither steal goods nor damage them. However, I cannot walk very well or very far but was unaware that because I have to use a stick and use store wheelchairs to get around large shops that this was now a behavioural issue.

And where will such arbitrary measures cease? Are they going to restrict the use of store wheelchairs or disabled toilets to BB holders? Might they decide next week that all those wearing jeans will be refused admission or all 4x4's will be banned from their car parks? Whilst you might argue that I am being petty, from this end it doesn't look that way.

Again, I do not disagree with your perspective. But it must be difficult to decide what criterion should they apply to determine whether someone is entitled to use a disabled parking bay. I do not have the answer to that and to be fair to the supermarkets (eeuugh, I can't believe I wrote that), they are stuck between a rock and a hard place, when it comes to allocating such spaces and determining who is or isn't abusing them. I suppose they are using the easiest and least costly method of establishing that.

I suppose the question could be turned to ask what the supermarkets are doing to prevent the abuse. It would not be unreasonable to assume that, although your challenge to them is entirely correct, it could be argued that someone else's challenge about prevention, is just as legitimate.

Flyboy152

oldone wrote: »

Not relevant. If I saw a peson parking in a disabled bay, I am not medically qualified to say if he is breaking the 'rules' or not.

It is no less relevant to you assuming that it was not Webby's business to report someone he assumed was breaking the rules. I presume you did not answer the question, because you knew what the response was going to be. You could see the parallels quite clearly and worked out that no one needs any proof to report someone breaking the rules, only a reasonable suspicion. Seeing someone park in the family parking without a family (as is the topic of this conversation), would cause any reasonable person to assume they were breaking the rules. Just as much as not needing proof that the person breaking into the house lives there.

Incidentally I am still waiting for you to prove your statement that more people park in a disabled bay that are not entitled to, than those who break a contract.
Or did you make it up to try and bolster very weak arguments.

I don't need proof, but I am sure that even you can do the logic and the maths.