People that park their cars on pavements.....

hollydays

I do know that the police are aware of how, nasty , petty and territorial neighbours can get.

Perhaps if only the genuine cases rang up, bearing in mind police resources are finite, they would respond more readily.

My experience, I witnessed a car who had completely mounted the pavement outside a local library on a busy narrow local road in a small town where lorries skim you near the pavement. Annoyingly there were carparks very close , I mean not even 100 yards away.he wasn't just wheels on- and I've never seen anyone else park on these pavements( he could have easily dumped his car in the library parking area) . I saw a man in a motorized wheelchair couldn't get past at all.
I rang the police who suggested I ring the parking enforcement-I told them no, I would not, that they should. Here was a clear cut case of dangerously obstructing the pavement in a dangerous spot , but they are obviously told to try not to get involved.

shaun_from_Africa

Azari wrote: »

You still haven't got the point.

To say the police will not act is wrong because some police have acted and do act. Thus the police will act.

As I said, not always and not immediately, and not in all circumstances. But, overall, it is not true to say the police will not act because they will.

Maybe It's just that I don't agree with your point.

Can't you see the clear contradiction in your comments above?

Thus the police will act.

As I said, not always and not immediately

So they will act, just not always, so surely what you should have stated is that the police will sometimes act.
After all, isn't the definition of sometimes a thing that happens some of the time but not always?

You keep stating that the police will act, but as myself and my neighbour have clearly found out, this is not true for the police force in our area.

Azari

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Maybe It's just that I don't agree with your point.

Can't you see the clear contradiction in your comments above?

So they will act, just not always, so surely what you should have stated is that the police will sometimes act.
After all, isn't the definition of sometimes a thing that happens some of the time but not always?

You keep stating that the police will act, but as myself and my neighbour have clearly found out, this is not true for the police force in our area.

I'm using English in the perfectly normal sense:

People will get mugged in Acton.

Does that mean that anyone who sets foot in Acton will always get mugged?

People will speed on motorways.

Does that mean that every driver will always speed every time s/he goes on a motorway?


It is incorrect to say "people will not speed on motorways" or "people will not get mugged in Acton" because both of these things will happen.

The same is true of what I said and you are making an argument where none should exist.

hollydays

In a recent survey 12% of AA members wrongly thought they had an automatic right to park outside their own house.
About 30% of neighbour disputes are about parking, jeez no wonder the police ignore.

shaun_from_Africa

Azari wrote: »

I'm using English in the perfectly normal sense:

People will get mugged in Acton.

Does that mean that anyone who sets foot in Acton will always get mugged?

No it doesn't.
However, if you had stated "People will get mugged in Acton", with a special emphasis placed on the word "will", then the way that that sentence is interpreted is totally different.

This is exactly what you did with your comment about the police acting.

(Which, BTW, is always an offence and one the police
will act on, despite what dear old Goater thinks

So no, I don't think that I am making an argument for the sake of it.
I am making an argument based on how you use and emphasise certain words when it suits you.

hollydays

Moving on.........

shaun_from_Africa

Moving on..

Not strictly parking as such, but one thing that does annoy me are the people who simply drop their cycles right outside shop doorways rather than leaving them standing up near to the door.
Whenever I see this and the bikes are in my way, I give them a gentle shove out of the way with my foot (and I do mean gentle so that I don't actually cause any damage).
This occasionally get a few choice words thrown im my direction, but that's about it.

System

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

No it doesn't.
However, if you had stated "People will get mugged in Acton", with a special emphasis placed on the word "will", then the way that that sentence is interpreted is totally different.

This is exactly what you did with your comment about the police acting.


So no, I don't think that I am making an argument for the sake of it.
I am making an argument based on how you use and emphasise certain words when it suits you.

I think he's done you here Azari. Its not often I see someone better you in a battle of words!

System

Azari wrote: »

Nope, you said:



For the police not to take it as a serious breach of a law it must be a breach in the first place so you very clearly are saying the police will not enforce it.

And you are wrong.

Driving 71 miles an hour on the motorway is a breach of the law and the police will not enforce that

System

hollydays wrote: »

In a recent survey 12% of AA members wrongly thought they had an automatic right to park outside their own house.
About 30% of neighbour disputes are about parking, jeez no wonder the police ignore.

Thats quite low. I thought it would be higher than that