Proposed (nasty) amendments to Protection of Freedoms Bill

vax2002

NevMetson wrote: »

I think that it is inevitable that RK liability will become law. In which case (as some have already suggested) we need to roll with the punches and look at the whole spectrum of ways in which we can fight back.

First and foremost we need a hard core of individuals who are prepared to get involved and put aside some time to organise and motivate others to do more than simply post endlessly on consumer forums about what a bloody scandal this whole PPC scam is.

I have no doubt that there are a number of individuals who are currently fighting one man battles against various aspects of this whole system. These (feisty) individuals need to come together under the umbrella of a secure and private forum in order to plan and co-ordinate effective strategies which are targeted rather than random and largely ineffective individual campaigns.

Right Who is Joining,, The Protection of motorist's society (poms) is Herby formed if proposed and seconded.

We will worry about agendas and electing spokespersons and leaders later.

AlexisV

NevMetson wrote: »

I think that it is inevitable that RK liability will become law. In which case (as some have already suggested) we need to roll with the punches and look at the whole spectrum of ways in which we can fight back.

First and foremost we need a hard core of individuals who are prepared to get involved and put aside some time to organise and motivate others to do more than simply post endlessly on consumer forums about what a bloody scandal this whole PPC scam is.

I have no doubt that there are a number of individuals who are currently fighting one man battles against various aspects of this whole system. These (feisty) individuals need to come together under the umbrella of a secure and private forum in order to plan and co-ordinate effective strategies which are targeted rather than random and largely ineffective individual campaigns.

Hi mate

How do you see the bill being amended to cover what anyone, keeper or otherwise, would actually be liable for? At the moment the bill just claims liability for a 'parking charge', as described at the location, and it is irrelevant whether the driver was permitted to park or not.

I've yet to see a parking charge issued to somebody who was permitted to park!