BPA Ltd. shot itself in the other foot and none of us noticed!

bazster

Just goes to show that none of us is a connoisseur of the gutter press I suppose!

I just picked this up from the NoToMob. The article where the BPA Ltd. admitted that it's members' charges are punishments carries a little cartoon, presumably intended as a jibe at the Mail:



But, of course, the knight with the St. George's Cross shield is in fact the emblem of the Express!

trisontana

Is there supposed to be a link in your post?

bazster

trisontana wrote: »

Is there supposed to be a link in your post?

No, we've all seen the page before. But this is it if you want to refresh your memory:

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Blog/monday-musing-victory-what-victory-/646

trisontana

Thanks. I missed the original article as I was out of the country.

Edna_Basher

Having felt the sharp pain of the bullet in their foot, it looks like the BPA has hastily tried to cover its tracks by editing this page.

Rather than stating that infringement of the rules is punishable, the text now reads “it may not be a criminal offence, but they recognise that an infringement of the rules has occurred and therefore, it has consequences”.

Hopefully someone took a screenshot of the original version of BPA’s rant before they changed it.

bazster

trisontana wrote: »

Thanks. I missed the original article as I was out of the country.

Ah, you've still missed the best bit then! The sentence which now reads thus:

"It may not be a criminal offence, but they recognise that an infringement of the rules has occurred and therefore, it has consequences."

Originally read thus, before they realised their humungous blooper:

"It may not be a criminal offence, but they recognise that an infringement of the rules has occurred and therefore, it is punishable."

Umkomaas

Hopefully someone took a screenshot of the original version of BPA’s rant before they changed it.

Now why would you think that wouldn't have been the case?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=66184472&postcount=12

Dee140157

Umkomaas you beat me to it. I was just cropping my screen shot to post here.

Edna_Basher

Umkomaas wrote: »

Now why would you think that wouldn't have been the case?

Silly me for asking such an obvious question.:)

Mind you, I see that they haven't removed their arrogant declaration of PPC infallibility (i.e. the claim that “responsible motorists never get a parking ticket”). The implication that only irresponsible motorists get parking tickets rather undermines their claims regarding the integrity and fairness of their members’ internal appeals processes, but I suppose this just confirms what we already know.