Can somebody clarify the rules on parking on pavements?

Rootbeer

LincolnshireYokel wrote: »

I do believe Martin Borman used the same defence at Nuremberg.

He would have had a job - he was dead!

Maybe you were thinking of his comedian son, Stan? :rotfl:

give_them_FA

Well, maybe he was dead, maybe he wasn't. He was tried in his absence at Nurmberg because the Court had no convincing proof that he was dead. Reports of him being seen in various countries persisted for many years. However I think he will certainly be dead now.

Tilt

What was the pcn for? I suspect it was code 1 parking in a restricted street etc which would be the dyl's rather than the offense of parking on the pavement.

LincolnshireYokel

Rootbeer wrote: »

He would have had a job - he was dead!

No, it was a subtle way of avoiding the accusation i was comparing him to a nazi dont blink, you'll miss some of these.

Actually, his court-appointed defence actually tried to use the unsuccessful defence that the court could not convict Bormann because he was already dead.

http://www.tercer-reich.com/documentos-y-reportajes/los-argumentos-de-la-defensa-de-martin-bormann-en-el-juicio-de-nurenberg/

TrickyWicky

LincolnshireYokel wrote: »

No, it was a subtle way of avoiding the accusation i was comparing him to a nazi

Not very subtle because I and everyone else who read your comment could see exactly what you were suggesting.

I was prepared to ignore it however since you've dragged it back up again I find myself wondering if I could obtain a court injunction against MSE to get your ISP details..

give_them_FA

Excel will help you do that, they know about these things...:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Paperbird

I'm quite happy to see people that park blocking the footpath get a ticket. Where we live was around a 3/4 mile walk along a 60mph limit road to get to the nearest bus stop. Along that road was a rugby pitch. On one side of the road was a narrow grass verge on the other was a narrow grass verge then the footpath and on match days there would be cars parked on both sides with very little gap between them.
You need to get to the bus or home from the bus with a toddler and a baby in a pushchair so you start walking along the footpath only to find someone has decided to park blocking it.
You can't get round it because the cars are so close together you can't get the pushchair between them.
Your only option is to go all the way back to the start of the parked cars and then walk with your toddler and the pushchair along a 60mph road for 400 to 500 yds.
Yes we put notes on the cars asking them not to block the footpath ( in a nice way not nasty )
Yes we did ask the rugby club to ask them not to block the footpath.
Yes we asked the police to see if they could stop them blocking the footpath.
Both of them also put nice notes on them asking not to block the footpath.
Did it make any difference NO.
So for all of you that think it's ok to block the footpath with your car remember that there are some that think as I did and that it's also ok to get the pushchair a little too close to your paintwork as they struggle past.

mikey72

Paperbird wrote: »

.................So for all of you that think it's ok to block the footpath with your car remember that there are some that think as I did and that it's also ok to get the pushchair a little too close to your paintwork as they struggle past.

Don't forget the mirrors. (Some older ones don't even bend backwards. (well they do eventually). I know what you mean about the gaps, but you can also walk over the bumper, and roll the pushchair across the bonnet. Done that too with a load of anglers that thought parking on the pavement, then over a hump back bridge was ok.

LincolnshireYokel

TrickyWicky wrote: »

Not very subtle because I and everyone else who read your comment could see exactly what you were suggesting.

I was prepared to ignore it however since you've dragged it back up again I find myself wondering if I could obtain a court injunction against MSE to get your ISP details..

ROFL....i worked in IT 25 years, and was the Data Protection Officer for the Local Authority for a while , I can assure you my knowledge of that subject well dwarfs yours...........your now trying the same toothless scare tactics that PPC's use.

And exactly what criminal offence have I committed that you can convince the court to give you an injunction for (that the ISP will fight tooth and nail) to provide the IP of the VPN server in sweden im currently using (although I might have been on the chinese server at that point), and then you will need an expert on swedish (or chinese) data prtection laws to get another court order to trace it from there, but wait, the VPN server doesnt keep logs, thats the point of it.....

Think your flogging a dead horse there..........i use Boxpn VPN services, if it helps, but they wont talk to you either, but heres there address

Cakinberk Telekominikasyon ve
Internet Servis Himetleri Ltd.
Ataturk Mh.
Bandirma Cd. N
o.37 D.8 Balikesir,
TR 10100 Turkey

If you dont know what a VPN tunnel is, i suggest you bone up on it. Ive been using one ever since Virgin decided to eavsdrop on my internet habits without my permission, and GCHQ decided to start reading our emails without asking us. Ill decide who reads my emails.

BTW, i didnt drag it back up, somone else did. I just pointed out he was dead at the time of the trial.

Now behave, nobody was implying anything, its all just banter. Lighten up.

TrickyWicky

Banter but you're the one getting all serious... Sheesh. You're the one who made the implication so you're the one who puts up with the comeback for it.

My comment about the injunction was made as a tongue in cheek comment but you're the one who's made a big thing out of it.

Frankly rather than go into the VPN stuff I would of just said something like "I use a prepay dongle with a voucher bought in cash".