Disabled Motoring UK :

trisontana

give_them_FA wrote: »

Before you complain too loudly, their forum is clearly polarised in the same way this one is, except it is in opposite phase.

Just as we try to suppress PPC interests that come on here telling lies, they are fully entitled to suppress anti-PPC interests that go on their forum telling the truth.

But don't forget that it's not supposed to be a PPC or BPA forum, but one which is supposed to look after the interest of disabled motorists. Clearly hey are not doing that if they are churning out BPA propaganda without questioning its validity.

give_them_FA

The PPCs and BPA offer them bribes. What more do you need to know? It wouldn't be the first charity to sell out its beneficiaries in return for "contributions".

vikingaero

give_them_FA wrote: »

The PPCs and BPA offer them bribes. What more do you need to know? It wouldn't be the first charity to sell out its beneficiaries in return for "contributions".

Another example of a sell out organisation is the RAC Foundation which campaigns on behalf of motorists and wants the Government to implement road tolling.... any ideas of who may be paying them off.....

notts_phil

I assume the stephen leak post on their is a fake....

ManxRed

give_them_FA wrote: »

Before you complain too loudly, their forum is clearly polarised in the same way this one is, except it is in opposite phase.

Just as we try to suppress PPC interests that come on here telling lies, they are fully entitled to suppress anti-PPC interests that go on their forum telling the truth.

Although we don't make a habit of lying about the ins and outs of English Law in order to mislead readers.

Opinions are one thing, misrepresenting the facts/truth, is another thing entirely.

I would have no beef if they removed comments because opinions didn't reflect their own viewpoints, but removing them because they highlight lies is something a lot more unpleasant indeed.

trisontana

I have now put another comment on there ( "awaiting moderation") asking them why they are deleting some comments, asking again what "law" makes PPC tickets enforceable, and informing them that they are now the laughing stock of various forums because they appear to be PPC stooges. I doubt it will get published, but at least they will now what many people think of them

give_them_FA

My reasoned contribution. Will be interested to see if it goes on; but I fear that once someone is brainwashed by the BPA you have little chance of any sort of reasoned argument getting through.


Figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act from the ministry of Justice show that in 2011 just 24 cases were won at trial by a parking Company in 2011. Yes, that's 24, in the whole of England and Wales, in a whole year, by all of the Parking Companies; as against an estimated 500,000 drivers who refused to pay. More recently, a Court equivalent to the High Court (the Upper Tribunal) has ruled, earlier this month, that the parking companies have no right to sue motorists; so that figure can only head downwards. The story by the first commentator, Mr Wharton, illustrates what the true agenda of these companies is by persisting in a charge against someone who had every right to use a disabled space.
Private parking invoices are to all intents and purposes unenforceable and I am surprised that DMUK would advise its members differently!
I find it extraordinary that so many Parking Companies have seen fit to attach themselves to this charity and I wonder whether the ulterior motive is that you are being fed misleading information to persuade you that your members should pay unenforceable charges.
Maybe the companies see their contribution as an investment rather than a donation.

vax2002

give_them_FA wrote: »

My reasoned contribution. Will be interested to see if it goes on; but I fear that once someone is brainwashed by the BPA you have little chance of any sort of reasoned argument getting through.


Figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act from the ministry of Justice show that in 2011 just 24 cases were won at trial by a parking Company in 2011. Yes, that's 24, in the whole of England and Wales, in a whole year, by all of the Parking Companies; as against an estimated 500,000 drivers who refused to pay. More recently, a Court equivalent to the High Court (the Upper Tribunal) has ruled, earlier this month, that the parking companies have no right to sue motorists; so that figure can only head downwards. The story by the first commentator, Mr Wharton, illustrates what the true agenda of these companies is by persisting in a charge against someone who had every right to use a disabled space.
Private parking invoices are to all intents and purposes unenforceable and I am surprised that DMUK would advise its members differently!
I find it extraordinary that so many Parking Companies have seen fit to attach themselves to this charity and I wonder whether the ulterior motive is that you are being fed misleading information to persuade you that your members should pay unenforceable charges.
Maybe the companies see their contribution as an investment rather than a donation.

My post of the week Award :beer: !!

ManxRed

give_them_FA wrote: »

My reasoned contribution. Will be interested to see if it goes on; but I fear that once someone is brainwashed by the BPA you have little chance of any sort of reasoned argument getting through.


Figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act from the ministry of Justice show that in 2011 just 24 cases were won at trial by a parking Company in 2011. Yes, that's 24, in the whole of England and Wales, in a whole year, by all of the Parking Companies; as against an estimated 500,000 drivers who refused to pay. More recently, a Court equivalent to the High Court (the Upper Tribunal) has ruled, earlier this month, that the parking companies have no right to sue motorists; so that figure can only head downwards. The story by the first commentator, Mr Wharton, illustrates what the true agenda of these companies is by persisting in a charge against someone who had every right to use a disabled space.
Private parking invoices are to all intents and purposes unenforceable and I am surprised that DMUK would advise its members differently!
I find it extraordinary that so many Parking Companies have seen fit to attach themselves to this charity and I wonder whether the ulterior motive is that you are being fed misleading information to persuade you that your members should pay unenforceable charges.
Maybe the companies see their contribution as an investment rather than a donation.

Good luck geting THAT published!!

benham3160

Helen Dolphin, Director of Policy and Campaigns at Disabled Motoring UK said: “These survey results
demonstrate that a strong deterrent is needed to ensure Blue Badge spaces are kept available for
those that need them, we can only achieve this by maintaining and enforcing the deterrent that
clamping and towing away provides.”

Me thinks somebody is in bed with somebody....

Taken from here (found entirely by accident)

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/Press%20Releases/New%20survey%20shows%20stronger%20deterrents%20are%20needed%20for%20those%20who%20park%20irresponsibly%20-%20November%202011.pdf

Also a nice line in there (if only they knew....) that 60% of people agreed LANDOWNERS had the right to control parking....... blah blah blah