Look, Tom Crispin: How Councils Treat "Plebs" Re Parking

Now do you see why I think your "contacts" helped you get off your
parking ticket? This poor woman had a *far* better reason to have her
ticket cancelled than you, but her appeal fell on deaf ears, because
the whole DPE thing's a money-making, anti-motorist scam, and there is
nothing *remotely* reasonable, sensible or proportionate about any of
it. It appears that informal appeals such as these are automatically
dismissed unless there is some "political" reason to give the victim
concerned special treatment.

She quite clearly shouldn't have got the ticket in the first place,
and the fact that the council refused to cancel the ticket afterwards,
much less apologise to the woman, is a disgrace. I'm so fed up with
this assault on motorists and this determination to punish them for
the slightest, most trivial infractions, whether or not it's in the
public interest. I'm also fed up with the liars on here who *still*
insist on claiming that there's no war on the motorist, despite
reading about this sort of thing themselves all the time. They know
perfectly well that there are anti-motorist measures all around us,
but it's part of their smug, sick "game" to pretend otherwise, because
they seem to think that they'll have a better chance of inflicting all
these anti-car measures on us if they pretend that they're nothing of
the kind, and that they're really "safety"/"environmental"/"anti-
congestion" measures (in reality, of course, anti-motorist measures
are frequently the opposite of one or more of those things).

This kind of thing just shows how callous, and utterly undeserving of
the support of reasonable people who want to make society better, the
motorist-haters really are. Councils are *still* blatantly abusing
DPE in order to raise revenue, despite having been clearly told not to
by central government; since they can't be trusted not to misuse the
powers which have been given to them, those powers should be taken
away and handed back to the police. Surely only the vilest and most
spiteful car-haters would disagree with that.

Preview: DA Comment:

This story from the Telegraph highlights all of what is wrong with
society today along with the cynical and hysterical war against
drivers who dare to break the simplest of 'rules'.

A mother who stopped to help her disabled son was spied on by a
roaming ANPR camera car with its hidden away traffic wardens hunting
for victims and was fined for 'parking' whilst she tried to
resuscitate her son.

Drivers are now public enemy number one and the state will stop at
nothing to penalise you for having the audacity to use a car. Those
responsible in Richmond Council which has a history of car hating
measures should be ashamed.

And yes; reading this does make me angry.

The story (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-
transport/5028721/Mother-given-parking-ticket-for-reviving-her-
severely-disabled-son.html):

A mother who says she stopped her car on a pavement to revive her
profoundly disabled son, was given a £100 parking ticket.

Penny Batkin, 40, says that Richmond Council has refused to back down
over the fine despite receiving a letter of explanation from her,
supported by her GP.

She says she was taking her son, Freddie, 4, to the Shooting Star
children's hospice in Hampton when he began gasping for breath and
turning blue.

Mrs Batkin, who has three children, was unaware that she had been
captured by traffic wardens who were patrolling the area in a CCTV
camera car.

Mrs Batkin, from Hampton Wick, near Richmond, south-west London, said
her son is unable to walk or talk and has frequent seizures. "I was so
furious when I got the letter. I could hear him gasping in the back
seat. My immediate reaction was to pull over and deal with him. I had
to release him from the rear passenger seat and resuscitate him. I was
away from the busy traffic on a wide pavement and would not have
restricted anyone walking past."

The council's appeals' officer quoted a section of the Highway Code in
a written response to her letter. It related to parking on the
pavement and the official insisted it had been unnecessary to park
there.

Mrs Batkin said it had been "rude and insulting" to quote the Highway
Code in the letter. "I hadn't parked. I had stopped to deal with an
emergency situation," she insisted.

Richmond Aid, a disability advice charity, has taken up the case. A
spokeswoman said: "It is absolutely shocking to discover that Richmond
Council's parking office cannot find it in their hearts to rescind a
parking fine incurred by a desperate mother who had no choice if she
was to save the life of her child. We are so appalled we struggle to
find the words."

On Mar 27, 11:42*pm, Nuxx Bar wrote:
Now do you see why I think your "contacts" helped you get off your
parking ticket? *This poor woman had a *far* better reason to have her
ticket cancelled than you, but her appeal fell on deaf ears, because
the whole DPE thing's a money-making, anti-motorist scam, and there is
nothing *remotely* reasonable, sensible or proportionate about any of
it. *It appears that informal appeals such as these are automatically
dismissed unless there is some "political" reason to give the victim
concerned special treatment.

She quite clearly shouldn't have got the ticket in the first place,
and the fact that the council refused to cancel the ticket afterwards,
much less apologise to the woman, is a disgrace. *I'm so fed up with
this assault on motorists and this determination to punish them for
the slightest, most trivial infractions, whether or not it's in the
public interest. *I'm also fed up with the liars on here who *still*
insist on claiming that there's no war on the motorist, despite
reading about this sort of thing themselves all the time. *They know
perfectly well that there are anti-motorist measures all around us,
but it's part of their smug, sick "game" to pretend otherwise, because
they seem to think that they'll have a better chance of inflicting all
these anti-car measures on us if they pretend that they're nothing of
the kind, and that they're really "safety"/"environmental"/"anti-
congestion" measures (in reality, of course, anti-motorist measures
are frequently the opposite of one or more of those things).

This kind of thing just shows how callous, and utterly undeserving of
the support of reasonable people who want to make society better, the
motorist-haters really are. *Councils are *still* blatantly abusing
DPE in order to raise revenue, despite having been clearly told not to
by central government; since they can't be trusted not to misuse the
powers which have been given to them, those powers should be taken
away and handed back to the police. *Surely only the vilest and most
spiteful car-haters would disagree with that.

Preview: DA Comment:

This story from the Telegraph highlights all of what is wrong with
society today along with the cynical and hysterical war against
drivers who dare to break the simplest of 'rules'.

A mother who stopped to help her disabled son was spied on by a
roaming ANPR camera car with its hidden away traffic wardens hunting
for victims and was fined for 'parking' whilst she tried to
resuscitate her son.

Drivers are now public enemy number one and the state will stop at
nothing to penalise you for having the audacity to use a car. Those
responsible in Richmond Council which has a history of car hating
measures should be ashamed.

And yes; reading this does make me angry.

The story (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-
transport/5028721/Mother-given-parking-ticket-for-reviving-her-
severely-disabled-son.html):

A mother who says she stopped her car on a pavement to revive her
profoundly disabled son, was given a £100 parking ticket.

Penny Batkin, 40, says that Richmond Council has refused to back down
over the fine despite receiving a letter of explanation from her,
supported by her GP.

She says she was taking her son, Freddie, 4, to the Shooting Star
children's hospice in Hampton when he began gasping for breath and
turning blue.

Mrs Batkin, who has three children, was unaware that she had been
captured by traffic wardens who were patrolling the area in a CCTV
camera car.

Mrs Batkin, from Hampton Wick, near Richmond, south-west London, said
her son is unable to walk or talk and has frequent seizures. "I was so
furious when I got the letter. I could hear him gasping in the back
seat. My immediate reaction was to pull over and deal with him. I had
to release him from the rear passenger seat and resuscitate him. I was
away from the busy traffic on a wide pavement and would not have
restricted anyone walking past."

The council's appeals' officer quoted a section of the Highway Code in
a written response to her letter. It related to parking on the
pavement and the official insisted it had been unnecessary to park
there.

Mrs Batkin said it had been "rude and insulting" to quote the Highway
Code in the letter. "I hadn't parked. I had stopped to deal with an
emergency situation," she insisted.

Richmond Aid, a disability advice charity, has taken up the case. A
spokeswoman said: "It is absolutely shocking to discover that Richmond
Council's parking office cannot find it in their hearts to rescind a
parking fine incurred by a desperate mother who had no choice if she
was to save the life of her child. We are so appalled we struggle to
find the words."

Perhaps if everybody who thinks Richmond Council is in the wrong
should e-mail the mayor ) to give her
your views.

They have been known to back down last year I parked at Richmond
Green, the nearest ticket machine to me was out of order, so I walked
to the next machine (less than 50 yards) by the time I got back to my
van I had a ticket. I nicely explained to the warden that the machine
was out of order & got the generic reply ( I've issued it now gov).
I rang the parking office and was told I would still have to pay. I
told them that I had got pictures of the broken meter & a copy of the
ticket I had bought & would quite be quite happy to meet them in
court, after I had informed the media. I also made it clear that I
would be calling various people from the council as witnesses as to
their procedures.
I had aletter abiut three weeks afterwards telling me the ticket had
been cancelled.

Francis

"Nuxx Bar" wrote in message
...
Councils are *still* blatantly abusing
DPE in order to raise revenue, despite having been clearly told not to
by central government; since they can't be trusted not to misuse the
powers which have been given to them, those powers should be taken
away and handed back to the police.

The opposite is happening in Hull. Car drivers have been fleeced of upwards
of 200 quid by clampers when parking on private property and the council has
cancelled its contract with them.

http://www.thisishullandeastriding.c...l/article.html



--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:01:21 -0700 (PDT), francis
said in
:

Perhaps if everybody who thinks Richmond Council is in the wrong
should e-mail the mayor ) to give her
your views.

Unlikely, this is a cycling newsgroup and as usual this nuxxious
emission had absolutely nothing to do with cycling, it's just the
lone crazy trying to peddle the myth of the poor downtrodden
motorist. I don't think there will be many people who will find it
hard to spot the essential differences in character between parking
bikes and cars.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Contents packed by intellectual weight and may settle
after posting. May contain traces of irony.

On Mar 28, 10:27*am, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:01:21 -0700 (PDT), francis
said in
:

Perhaps if everybody who thinks Richmond Council is in the wrong
should e-mail the mayor ) to give her
your views.

Unlikely, this is a cycling newsgroup and as usual this nuxxious
emission had absolutely nothing to do with cycling, it's just the
lone crazy trying to peddle the myth of the poor downtrodden
motorist. *I don't think there will be many people who will find it
hard to spot the essential differences in character between parking
bikes and cars.

And as usual you only use the "off topic" excuse when someone says
something that you *don't* agree with. It's just one of your list of
excuses to censor those opinions which you would rather not see on
"your" newsgroup. The trouble is that everyone can see exactly what
you're up to.

You never stop stirring it, do you? Even when it's been made entirely
obvious to you that such behaviour has detrimental consequences for
you, you just can't help it. What will it take for you to stop being
such a ****wit?

On Mar 28, 7:51*am, "Simon Mason"
wrote:
"Nuxx Bar" wrote in message

...
* Councils are *still* blatantly abusing
DPE in order to raise revenue, despite having been clearly told not to
by central government; since they can't be trusted not to misuse the

powers which have been given to them, those powers should be taken
away and handed back to the police.

The opposite is happening in Hull. Car drivers have been fleeced of upwards
of 200 quid by clampers when parking on private property and the council has
cancelled its contract with them.

http://www.thisishullandeastriding.c...rivers-council...

Well, obviously some councils are better than others, although the
clamping contract should never have been initiated in the first place
(clampers were already well known as parasitic scum by 2005).

Oh, and did you seek the permission of the group owner, Chapman,
before you posted about motoring? Especially since you posted about
something that was good news to drivers. You've ruined Chapman's
weekend, you know.

"Nuxx Bar" wrote in message
...


Oh, and did you seek the permission of the group owner, Chapman,
before you posted about motoring? Especially since you posted about
something that was good news to drivers. You've ruined Chapman's
weekend, you know.


Mr Chapman has *never* contacted me to advise me not to respond to certain
"trolls" unlike about half a dozen other contributors. As I said to Judith,
I am not owned by anyone and as long as people are courteous and don't
descend into personal insults, then I will respond to who I like.

Mr Chapman and myself are both drivers as well.


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:42:01 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
wrote:

Now do you see why I think your "contacts" helped you get off your
parking ticket?

And here's the letter that got me off...

www.britishschoolofcycling.com/misc/pcn

I hope it makes your day.

On Mar 28, 10:24*pm, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:42:01 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar

wrote:
Now do you see why I think your "contacts" helped you get off your
parking ticket?

And here's the letter that got me off...

www.britishschoolofcycling.com/misc/pcn

I hope it makes your day.

Well, it's good that you have the decency not to deny that blatant
favouritism has occurred here (hardly surprising that it has,
considering that "One rule for us" is a cornerstone of socialism, and
socialism is what really lies behind this assault on the motorist).

If only more people here were like you and Simon Mason...I may
disagree with you strongly, but you do at least keep it civil, genuine
and truthful.

On Mar 29, 7:05*pm, Nuxx Bar wrote:
On Mar 28, 10:24*pm, Tom Crispin

wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:42:01 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar

wrote:
Now do you see why I think your "contacts" helped you get off your
parking ticket?

And here's the letter that got me off...

www.britishschoolofcycling.com/misc/pcn

I hope it makes your day.

Well, it's good that you have the decency not to deny that blatant
favouritism has occurred here (hardly surprising that it has,
considering that "One rule for us" is a cornerstone of socialism, and
socialism is what really lies behind this assault on the motorist).

If only more people here were like you and Simon Mason...I may
disagree with you strongly, but you do at least keep it civil, genuine
and truthful.

BTW, I note that your (successful) appeal was a formal rather than
informal one (otherwise there would be no Notice to Owner for them to
cancel). Which of the "grounds for appeal" did you tick? And had you
made an (unsuccessful) informal appeal? Just curious. ;-)