speed camera van in SHUT LAYBY

Car_54

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

I've also seen DVLA spy vans parked in coned-off lay-bys. A bit of a problem if you urgently need to stop, but you can't due to presence of parasites in a coned-off area.

In what way is someone engaged in catching criminals and/or tax evaders a "parasite"?

[Deleted User]

a.turner wrote: »

One flaw with that is you haven't said anything to have a genuine discussion about. I bet you're at a real loss without Kyle.

Who is this?

[Deleted User]

Car_54 wrote: »

In what way is someone engaged in catching criminals and/or tax evaders a "parasite"?

In the way that they sell personal details of registered keepers to private parking companies. I can't think of a better description of an organisation that single-handedly supports an entire rogue industry.

AdrianC

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

In the way that they sell personal details of registered keepers to private parking companies. I can't think of a better description of an organisation that single-handedly supports an entire rogue industry.

Have you considered taking the plates off your car and "de-registering" it, John of the family Smith?

[Deleted User]

a.turner wrote: »

I guess you have a problem with them interfering after you've given the mrs a back hander.

I don't hit my wife. Can you explain what that has got to do with anything. And what on earth is that stuff about Kyle?

Car_54

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

In the way that they sell personal details of registered keepers to private parking companies. I can't think of a better description of an organisation that single-handedly supports an entire rogue industry.

They only sell information as directed by the Secretary of State for Transport. Your beef is with him/her, not the DVLA.

[Deleted User]

Car_54 wrote: »

They only sell information as directed by the Secretary of State for Transport. Your beef is with him/her, not the DVLA.

That would be Chris Grayling :rotfl: - explains a lot. Here's what the DVLA say in a recent article:


The DVLA told The Sunday Times that it is allowed to disclose details of a vehicle's keeper under data protection laws, and that without such data-sharing motorists would be able to drive or park anywhere they wanted, without being responsible for their actions.

They are ALLOWED to - they are not obliged to. That they do, is a decision taken by the senior civil servants in the DVLA. If they were to stop doing this, an entire rogue industry, which brings misery to millions, would disappear overnight. As I say, I cannot think of a better description than 'parasite' for an organisation like the DVLA. Not only are they parasites, they are also buffoons and very thick.


Anyway, this thread was about that other bunch of parasites, the revenue camera operators skulking in coned-off lay-bys, thereby denying genuine users access to the facility.

a.turner

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

I don't agree with johnsmith's views on the police but I really don't think he does think that.

Your posts aren't acceptable. Argue all you like but making outrageous personal attacks just makes you look foolish.

He doesn't think this is a crime.

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

How often do we hear the police bleating on about a lack of funds etc, etc … They are so short of money and manpower that they can't investigate burglaries and other serious crimes. No matter, they seem to have found time for this:


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/07/police-investigating-ukip-candidate-youtube-carl-benjamin-jess-phillips-comments


It beggars belief! Whilst the 'incident' is clearly in very bad taste and offensive, no way would any rational person consider it a crime. No wonder plod can't do what he's paid to do when he's wasting time on YouTube. It's nothing short of a scandal and the police want sorting out, big time.

AdrianC

I find myself wondering what's left for plod to do, once all the things any random individual considers shouldn't be crimes are ruled out.

I presume this is a view that carries similar weight to John of the family Smith's, so if his opinions were to decide policing policy, then so should this person's. Right?

[Deleted User]

a.turner wrote: »

He doesn't think this is a crime.

That one's a straw man argument. Again, look it up. And of course it's not relevant to the current discussion. So we now have ad hominem and straw man. Can we go for any others?


BTW, you still haven't told me about Kyle.