The Mail gets dirty

The_Slithy_Tove

The_Deep wrote: »

The DM Is putting the information out there, it is up to the general public to take heed. Unfortunately there is a large section of society who tend to denigrate everything the DM publishes.

Have you heard of the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf? Unfortunately, the DM fits squarely into that role. There is so much utter tripe in that rag, that on the rare occasion they do actually have something useful to say, they have trouble in getting taken seriously. It's their own fault, even though I support this particular campaign.

Redx

Nick_C wrote: »

The Mail have been campaigning against private parking enforcement contractors for a long time. They campaigned against clamping on private land. As a result, people who have no right to can now park in the visitors bays where I live, and there is no longer any effective action we can take against them.

Drivers. If you don't want to be ticketed, don't park where you are not meant to. Simple.

whilst there may be a case to be heard in your particular anecdote, the wider issue is the ticketing of cars in places where motorists ARE SUPPOSED TO PARK

so supermarkets (asda - morrissons - lidl - aldi - sainsburys - tesco etc), retail parks (thousands of these plying their trade) , hospitals and health centres (thousands of these) , motorway service stations (hundreds of these) , hotels (thousands of these) , park and ride , diy stores like b&q (hundreds) , general goods stores like Range and B&M stores (thousands) , fast food outlets (mcdonalds, kfc etc) , keep fit centres , leisure centres , etc etc

get real !!!!!!, its not just about parking in somebodys space near flats or on private housing developments

I do not park in your space, but I object to being ticketed whilst parking whilst going about my legitimate business, especially if those businesses cause the "infringement" in the first place, like being ticketed for overstaying on a free hospital car park because their consultant was late (maybe he couldnt get a reserved staff parking spot ?) - or overstaying on a free to park retail park whilst visiting a dozen shops and spending over a hundred pounds !

so you are saying your scenario fits all ? - I dont think so

sometimes there will be a need and a good reason for the ticketing, but giving a patient 10 tickets due to that patient being kept in for major surgery and unable to move his legitimately parked vehicle does not fit your scenario and is heartless, pointless and not why I pay MY taxes to help support the NHS budget

so NOT SIMPLE at all !

Redx

Nick_C wrote: »

I think parking wardens should be paid by results. Illegal street parking in my area is widespread and hazardous.

Personally, I've never had a parking ticket. Perhaps because I don't park illegally?

this isnt about council controlled street parking, its about private parking overseen by ex clampers , knuckledraggers and !!!!!! turpins out to make a fast buck by targeting motorists on private land (even if that land is owned by hospital trusts etc)

these are not even parking tickets, they are fake ones , invoices

this isnt about something illegal either as its private land which isnt covered by statute

Umkomaas

Good response Redx to Nick_C.

Another seeming pub parking 'expert' demonstrating an extremely shallow understanding of the world of private parking.

If you ain't got the expertise, don't spout 'expert' opinion!

bazster

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Have you heard of the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf? Unfortunately, the DM fits squarely into that role. There is so much utter tripe in that rag, that on the rare occasion they do actually have something useful to say, they have trouble in getting taken seriously. It's their own fault, even though I support this particular campaign.

There's a reason why the Daily Wail has such a high circulation, and that's because whatever you or I may think of it many people take it seriously. I remember my MIL arguing with my FIL, telling him to stop buying a rag like the Mirror and get a quality paper like the Mail.

Like it or not the Mail has clout, especially with politicians getting the jitters about an upcoming general election, so this campaign is the best thing that's happened to the anti-PPC fight in a long time. It'll have vastly more effect than any number of appeals to PoPLA.

Good to see that the BPA Ltd.'s shifty letter to the Mail had such an effect - NOT! :rotfl:

Guys_Dad

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Have you heard of the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf? Unfortunately, the DM fits squarely into that role. There is so much utter tripe in that rag, that on the rare occasion they do actually have something useful to say, they have trouble in getting taken seriously. It's their own fault, even though I support this particular campaign.

Surprised you chose that tone. If the Daily Mail has the circulation that it does - then it is because it appeals to a larger group of people than other papers. So, assuming you read another paper, why do you suppose that your views are superior or more enlightened than the larger group who choose to get their news from the Mail? Should the country be run for the benefit of the majority or the liberal minority?

taking your other point about the utter tripe in the Mail, I challenge you to produce any articles from today or tomorrow's Mail that is utter tripe. So many people spout similar comments but fail to actually highlight specific articles.

I haven't bought the Mail for years, but will read one if there is one around.

Your comments on Parking matters, on the other hand are usually spot on. :beer:

bargepole

The point here is that the Mail online edition actually has the highest traffic numbers of any national newspaper.


Agreed that some of their articles are complete non-stories, and some of their staunchly Tory editorial rhetoric is utter garbage, but they did play a big part in the campaign to persuade Ministers to outlaw private clamping.


The current series of articles is, unlike most churnalism efforts in many papers, being properly researched with a team of people on the case. One of them took a drive to somewhere north of Watford yesterday to photograph the house of one of the PPC fat cats.


More to come tomorrow, Friday, and the big one on Saturday.

The_Deep

There is so much utter tripe in that rag ...

I like the DM, it reinforces my prejudices.

bazster

bargepole wrote: »

The point here is that the Mail online edition actually has the highest traffic numbers of any national newspaper.


Agreed that some of their articles are complete non-stories, and some of their staunchly Tory editorial rhetoric is utter garbage, but they did play a big part in the campaign to persuade Ministers to outlaw private clamping.


The current series of articles is, unlike most churnalism efforts in many papers, being properly researched with a team of people on the case. One of them took a drive to somewhere north of Watford yesterday to photograph the house of one of the PPC fat cats.


More to come tomorrow, Friday, and the big one on Saturday.

Popcorn ordered!

grant_uk

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Surprised you chose that tone. If the Daily Mail has the circulation that it does - then it is because it appeals to a larger group of people than other papers. So, assuming you read another paper, why do you suppose that your views are superior or more enlightened than the larger group who choose to get their news from the Mail? Should the country be run for the benefit of the majority or the liberal minority?

taking your other point about the utter tripe in the Mail, I challenge you to produce any articles from today or tomorrow's Mail that is utter tripe. So many people spout similar comments but fail to actually highlight specific articles.

I haven't bought the Mail for years, but will read one if there is one around.

Your comments on Parking matters, on the other hand are usually spot on. :beer:

You're kidding, right? The Daily Mail is one of the worst offenders for printing articles based on PR releases instead of news. You can spot these a mile off.


They have a headline to grab your attention, refer to some dodgy research and in the 2nd or 3rd paragraph will be a website link or company name for the people who paid to have the article put together in the first place.

Michael Marshall of Merseyside Skeptics does a lot on this subject and does a talk at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT7ulnOKvJU if you're interested in hearing how these things work.