New neighbours don't get the etiquette

EdGasketTheSecond

Scrapit wrote: »

In your opinion. Everyone else can tell who the Muppet is. Remember, I quoted the CPS.

There is nothing in the link you provided about trespass or parking on someone else's drive. You must be a brick short of a load.

Scrapit

EdGasketTheSecond wrote: »

There is nothing in the link you provided about trespass or parking on someone else's drive. You must be a brick short of a load.

I thought youd came to your senses and reread what was written. Maybe you are one eye test short of a pescription. Let me remind you it is up there in black and white and would take a mere moment to correct yourself by checking.
Why do you think the link doesn't mention trespass? Now think before replying. And hint, possibly re read what has been posted. If you don't want to continue looking a bit dense.;)

DoaM

You can keep saying as much as you like about something being there in black and white - you are still wrong ... the link you posted has absolutely nothing to do with trespass (as trespass is not a criminal act).

To remind you YET AGAIN ... Ed was correcting previous posters who were saying that trespass is illegal - which it isn't. The CPS link you posted has no relevance whatsoever to what Ed was correcting people about, so I don't know why you keep banging that drum.

If you're trying to say something different, please spell it out in clear terms - cryptic responses are idiotic.

Scrapit

DoaM wrote: »

You can keep saying as much as you like about something being there in black and white - you are still wrong ... the link you posted has absolutely nothing to do with trespass (as trespass is not a criminal act).

To remind you YET AGAIN ... Ed was correcting previous posters who were saying that trespass is illegal - which it isn't. The CPS link you posted has no relevance whatsoever to what Ed was correcting people about, so I don't know why you keep banging that drum.

If you're trying to say something different, please spell it out in clear terms - cryptic responses are idiotic.

Remind who. It's me doing the reminding. Firstly read what I have wrote. Please. To save your own face that you are so determine to make look foolish.
Secondly, explain how the CPS are incorrect. I could do with a laugh.
Thirdly, and I cannot stress this enough, reread what I have written and see where you have gone awry.
That's alot of reminding. All brought about by one poster, ed, getting the wrong end of the stick and another, yourself,jumping in. Just follow the simple instructions above and you'll be back on track.
Final reminder, it's not cryptic just cos you don't comprehend.

TooManyPoints

I fear this could run and run and has reminiscences of a "discussion" I had with a well known poster on here a few weeks back. I don't know if the two are related but a similar disconnection between what other people were posting about and what he posted about was evident. I'll just have one go:

Remember, I quoted the CPS.

Indeed you did. You quoted the CPS guidance on Criminal Damage. Nobody on here mentioned Criminal Damage. The discussion centred around the hypothetical scenario where one person parked his car on another person's drive without permission. Unless the car caused damage to the drive, that does not involve Criminal Damage (or criminality of any other kind since trespass is not a criminal offence).

Bare in mind what they do and their role in law...

Indeed. They make charging decisions and prosecute people suspected of criminal offences. Since trespass is not a criminal offence and since that is the only transgression mentioned, why do you suppose the CPS would have any involvement?

Sea_Shell

I think the only mention of criminal damage was if the neighbour damaged OPs car in retaliation for her parking on their drive.

TooManyPoints

I think the only mention of criminal damage was if the neighbour damaged OPs car in retaliation for her parking on their drive.

Indeed. And that wasn't really pertinent to the issue which revolved around whether trespass was illegal or not. There are some posters on here (and I don't know if they are related) who will argue vigorously that black is white. When it is pointed out that they are incorrect they will switch to arguing vigorously that white is dark pink.

Scrapit

TooManyPoints wrote: »

I fear this could run and run and has reminiscences of a "discussion" I had with a well known poster on here a few weeks back. I don't know if the two are related but a similar disconnection between what other people were posting about and what he posted about was evident. I'll just have one go:



Indeed you did. You quoted the CPS guidance on Criminal Damage. Nobody on here mentioned Criminal Damage. The discussion centred around the hypothetical scenario where one person parked his car on another person's drive without permission. Unless the car caused damage to the drive, that does not involve Criminal Damage (or criminality of any other kind since trespass is not a criminal offence).



Indeed. They make charging decisions and prosecute people suspected of criminal offences. Since trespass is not a criminal offence and since that is the only transgression mentioned, why do you suppose the CPS would have any involvement?

God, another one.
Answer this. Have you read what I wrote?
I mentioned criminal damage.
I am not nobody.
I am somebody.
Who mentioned criminal damage.
I mentioned it in post #126.

Scrapit wrote: »

Park on her drive and expect damage to your vehicle. Or it being mobilised by clamp etc. Or both for that extra enjoyment.

Ed then stated :

EdGasketTheSecond wrote: »

There's nothing legally to stop you parking on someone else's drive and the householder would be commiting a crime if they were to interfere with your car. Sounds stupid and it is but that is the current law in England. The householder would then have to go through the courts to get your car removed which would take months.

This was post #128, and this is important:

EdGasketTheSecond wrote: »

I was just correcting the previous three posts that suggested parking on the driveway would be illegal (it is not), that she should expect damage (that would be illegal), that it would be clamped (that would be illegal), and that she could not park on the driveway as it was not her property (plainly wrong). Lets get the facts straight first.

The above was post number 130.

Scrapit wrote: »

It not correcting if it is the case. And it's plainly obvious that it's illegal. It's also highly likely to occur(the damage, if not the clamping).

is what I wrote in post #133.
Everyone following so far? I thought and still do think that if you park on someone's drive it is likely you will end up with a damaged vehicle. Anyone disagree?
Ed then got himself into a bit of a tizzy, cos I stated that he wasn't correcting me (remember post number130). He wasn't correcting me, even though my post, #126 is one of the three posts he referred to.
He wasn't correcting me, everyone agree? Hard to disagree when the maths and quotes are there.
He then referred to trespass in post#134 stating that I was incorrect.

EdGasketTheSecond wrote: »

Nope:


https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/cars/parking-drive-law-police-trespassing-260605

This was in response to part of my post #133 when I stated "And it's plainly obvious that it's illegal." Criminal damage is illegal and is obviously so. The same criminal damage I referred to in post126. The same criminal damage I clarified in post #138.

Scrapit wrote: »

Yes: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/criminal-damage

The same criminal damage I referred to in post#133 but ed neglected to quote and I suspect was the start of his confusion.
In conclusion, the CPS are the authority for the definition of crimes.
Criminal damage is likely, imho, and is ilegal (Not in my opinion).
Ed should read when replying.
Doam should follow simple instructions when told and reread the posts to avoid looking silly.
Any questions?

Mr_Singleton

AdrianC wrote: »

A typo for 350bhp, I suspect.

Yup.........

TooManyPoints

No questions, thanks, just an observation.

The issue was whether parking on somebody else's drive without permission is illegal (it's not). It's quite likely that somebody doing so might see their vehicle damaged and that any such damage inflicted would probably amount to an offence of criminal damage. That wasn't under debate or argued against so why you felt the need to attach the CPS guidance on that offence is a little unclear.

As I said, this will run and run. But it will have to run without me because I've done this, been there, got the T-shirt.