The Nazis want some extra tax from me
Discussion
Poledriver said:
Dupont666 said:
The case produced (in the judge’s words) a 'snowstorm of incidents and issues' relating to the right of the owners of one of the houses to park on land adjacent to the properties and in spaces in the lane serving them. The Court concluded that for the right to park to be implied by a right of vehicular access, the ability to park must be ‘reasonably necessary’ for the exercise or enjoyment of the land being accessed. It is not sufficient that the right to park is desirable. Parking must be necessary to make proper use of the accessed land. In other words, there is no automatic right to park if there is a right of vehicular access to a piece of land.
Bold is the bits you want
Its not necessary so therefore it really is not allowed
In his mind it is necessary, because he has his head up his arse!Bold is the bits you want
Its not necessary so therefore it really is not allowed
ks!!Especially when quoting a 10 year old case file in defence earlier...
Dupont666 said:
Poledriver said:
Dupont666 said:
The case produced (in the judge’s words) a 'snowstorm of incidents and issues' relating to the right of the owners of one of the houses to park on land adjacent to the properties and in spaces in the lane serving them. The Court concluded that for the right to park to be implied by a right of vehicular access, the ability to park must be ‘reasonably necessary’ for the exercise or enjoyment of the land being accessed. It is not sufficient that the right to park is desirable. Parking must be necessary to make proper use of the accessed land. In other words, there is no automatic right to park if there is a right of vehicular access to a piece of land.
Bold is the bits you want
Its not necessary so therefore it really is not allowed
In his mind it is necessary, because he has his head up his arse!Bold is the bits you want
Its not necessary so therefore it really is not allowed
ks!!Especially when quoting a 10 year old case file in defence earlier...
Don
--
Dupont666 said:
Chester Drawers said:
Good grief, over half an hour and no repost from Rypt? I expect he's off doing some research at barrackroomlawyer.com or howtostopdiggingahole.com
Though I suspect he will be back before I leave to day with a law dating back to 1800 saying otherwise.
[quote=rypt]
[quote=a legal document]“Urban road” is defined in Section 15(12) to include, broadly, those roads subject to a speed
limit of up to 40 mph. “Road” is not defined in the 1974 Act: but is defined in Section 142 of
the 1984 Act (i.e. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) as:
“.... any length of highway or of any other road to which the public has access ...”
...
Put simply, at Common Law, a “highway” is a way over which all members of the public have
the right to pass and re-pass without hindrance [/quote=rypt]
But all your quote from this parking ticket case says is that you can "pass or re-pass" not that you can stop, leave your car, go to work, come back and drive home. You can drive up and down the road all day long if you want but you can't leave your car on the road.
[quote=a legal document]“Urban road” is defined in Section 15(12) to include, broadly, those roads subject to a speed
limit of up to 40 mph. “Road” is not defined in the 1974 Act: but is defined in Section 142 of
the 1984 Act (i.e. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) as:
“.... any length of highway or of any other road to which the public has access ...”
...
Put simply, at Common Law, a “highway” is a way over which all members of the public have
the right to pass and re-pass without hindrance [/quote=rypt]
But all your quote from this parking ticket case says is that you can "pass or re-pass" not that you can stop, leave your car, go to work, come back and drive home. You can drive up and down the road all day long if you want but you can't leave your car on the road.
Edited by markh1973 on Thursday 27th May 16:42
Odie said:
Citizen09 said:
Odie said:
BDZ said:
There's no requirement for a cop to show you his ID
I refer you to section 42 of the police reform act 2002.S.38 refers to police staff designated as
(a) community support officer;
(b) investigating officer;
(c) detention officer;
(d) escort officer.
or persons designated by the Director General.
S.39 refers to contracted-out staff - i.e. detention officers who are employed by companies to staff police custody areas.
S.41 deals with powers for accredited persons who have powers laid out in Schedule 5 of the Act - think council wardens, HATO-type traffic powers etc.
None of the above are police officers; however forces will have different rules with regard to warrant cards for police officers.
FWIW, I always carry mine on duty, but lack of it off duty doesn't strip me of the powers of a constable - except one or two, like searching people who haven't been arrested (because, not being in uniform, I would be required to show my warrant card.)
Quinny said:
FishFace said:
Ahhh, very clever use of bifurcation there. Presenting only two alternatives through implication when more exist. Very clever. No one would guess there is ground between being a 'kiss ass' and a tool after you wrote that.
WOW, have you learnt a new word??Quinny said:
FishFace said:
Ahhh, very clever use of bifurcation there. Presenting only two alternatives through implication when more exist. Very clever. No one would guess there is ground between being a 'kiss ass' and a tool after you wrote that.
WOW, have you learnt a new word??there's some bks posted on this thread, mostly by the OP.
If it's a private road, that means the access is private, and not public. Therefore if you don't have explicit permission to park there, you're not allowed.
If it was a public road, but not on the list of streets, i.e. a private highway then you would be able to use it.
In order for it to become a highway, and have a public right to pass and re-pass, this can be granted by the owner, or unrestricted access for a period of time.
It doesn't need a gate, the sign is doing the same thing and stopping the public dedication.
'A landowner or tenant may prevent a right of way coming in to existence across his land by providing evidence of no intention to dedicate during the time the public use took place. Examples are putting up a physical barrier, erecting notices indicating the route is private, or turning people back. Shutting a path for at least one day a year has been accepted as a standard method of indicating no intention to dedicate, but the closure must be brought to the attention of the public.'
http://www.kent.gov.uk/roads_and_transport/transpo...
ks posted on this thread, mostly by the OP.If it's a private road, that means the access is private, and not public. Therefore if you don't have explicit permission to park there, you're not allowed.
If it was a public road, but not on the list of streets, i.e. a private highway then you would be able to use it.
In order for it to become a highway, and have a public right to pass and re-pass, this can be granted by the owner, or unrestricted access for a period of time.
It doesn't need a gate, the sign is doing the same thing and stopping the public dedication.
'A landowner or tenant may prevent a right of way coming in to existence across his land by providing evidence of no intention to dedicate during the time the public use took place. Examples are putting up a physical barrier, erecting notices indicating the route is private, or turning people back. Shutting a path for at least one day a year has been accepted as a standard method of indicating no intention to dedicate, but the closure must be brought to the attention of the public.'
http://www.kent.gov.uk/roads_and_transport/transpo...
FishFace said:
Quinny said:
FishFace said:
Quinny said:
FishFace said:
Scoring minus a million on the attitude test = FPN.
I'd rather pay £55 quid than be a kiss assYou said that the failure of the attitude test resulted in the FPN.
Please explain to me(a MOP) how we pass this test without kissing the ass of a policeman?
BTW My Chambers doesn't define bifurcation in the way that you seem to have interpreted it. You are close... but "no banana".
You may not have a Chambers, but this link gives various definitions:
http://www.answers.com/topic/bifurcation-4
Don
--
Quinny said:
Funny enough..... What with me being such a thicky an all, I had to look up that word (bifurcation)
Being unfamiliar with it, and having such a low IQ, I had no idea what it meant.... So I put it into a Theosaurus
It still didn't make sense
Like you, I am a bit of a thicky.Being unfamiliar with it, and having such a low IQ, I had no idea what it meant.... So I put it into a Theosaurus
It still didn't make sense
However, I am lucky enough to not realise that I am stupid.
... so I looked up the definition of "bifurcation" and discovered that FishFace didn't understand it at all.
Don
--
Gents, is this a wind-up? You've looked up a word which has uses across a range of subjects e.g. Mathematics, Economics and Dentistry (apparently) and assumed it doesn't exist in the subject I used it in. Hint > Google > Bifurcation Critical Thinking = answer. Dr Madsen Pirie has written a few accessible books should you wish to further your knowledge.
Quinny, I didn't call you a 'thicky', I merely pointed out a cheap fallacy of logic you used. Just accept it, learn from it and move on Although trying to cheapen what can be a serious academic subject that fascinated the likes of Einstein doesn't lend itself to not being one...
Chances are a police officer will have already decided if you're to receive and FPN or not when they see the offence before talking to you. If they decide not to issue one, anything other than being a tool will keep it that way. Including what I described above, which again is far from arse kissing.
Quinny, I didn't call you a 'thicky', I merely pointed out a cheap fallacy of logic you used. Just accept it, learn from it and move on
Although trying to cheapen what can be a serious academic subject that fascinated the likes of Einstein doesn't lend itself to not being one... don4l said:
FishFace, could you explain yourself?
You said that the failure of the attitude test resulted in the FPN.
Please explain to me(a MOP) how we pass this test without kissing the ass of a policeman?
Act in a mature, reasonable way. Having manners, being polite and treating others as you wish to be treated is a million miles away from arse kissing, no? You said that the failure of the attitude test resulted in the FPN.
Please explain to me(a MOP) how we pass this test without kissing the ass of a policeman?
Chances are a police officer will have already decided if you're to receive and FPN or not when they see the offence before talking to you. If they decide not to issue one, anything other than being a tool will keep it that way. Including what I described above, which again is far from arse kissing.
You've gotta love PH, haven't you?
I live in a small cul de sac, which is a private road, marked with signs as "private" and "residents parking only" and the like. This is Greater London, however, and regularly cars are parked within the road that have nowt to do with the residents, and equally regularly residents who each have a share of the freehold of the private land are unable to park on that land due to said non-resident vehicles. Some are regulars, most are chancers.
I live in a live and let live world, but every so often I am irked. Many of the PH massif, of course, see it as their God given right to drive how they like and park as they like, and f*^k everyone else. Pepipoo is their salvation. And even better than that, they will chase all potential legal clauses to prove they can act as they like, all despite what most would see as "natural" justice.
Like I say, you've gotta love PH or you'd stress yourself to an early grave due to the arrogance of some of its members. Thatcher's children abound.
I live in a small cul de sac, which is a private road, marked with signs as "private" and "residents parking only" and the like. This is Greater London, however, and regularly cars are parked within the road that have nowt to do with the residents, and equally regularly residents who each have a share of the freehold of the private land are unable to park on that land due to said non-resident vehicles. Some are regulars, most are chancers.
I live in a live and let live world, but every so often I am irked. Many of the PH massif, of course, see it as their God given right to drive how they like and park as they like, and f*^k everyone else. Pepipoo is their salvation. And even better than that, they will chase all potential legal clauses to prove they can act as they like, all despite what most would see as "natural" justice.
Like I say, you've gotta love PH or you'd stress yourself to an early grave due to the arrogance of some of its members. Thatcher's children abound.
scenario8 said:
You've gotta love PH, haven't you?
I live in a small cul de sac, which is a private road, marked with signs as "private" and "residents parking only" and the like. This is Greater London, however, and regularly cars are parked within the road that have nowt to do with the residents, and equally regularly residents who each have a share of the freehold of the private land are unable to park on that land due to said non-resident vehicles. Some are regulars, most are chancers.
I live in a live and let live world, but every so often I am irked.
I also live in a private cul-de-sac along with five other residents, the lane is owned by one resident & we all have access to our properties. Although I am certainly no expert & depending on your particle situation you may want to think about introducing clamping. Even putting up very visible signs with the threat of clamping works wonders. I live in a small cul de sac, which is a private road, marked with signs as "private" and "residents parking only" and the like. This is Greater London, however, and regularly cars are parked within the road that have nowt to do with the residents, and equally regularly residents who each have a share of the freehold of the private land are unable to park on that land due to said non-resident vehicles. Some are regulars, most are chancers.
I live in a live and let live world, but every so often I am irked.
Quinny said:
Funny enough..... What with me being such a thicky an all, I had to look up that word (bifurcation)
Being unfamiliar with it, and having such a low IQ, I had no idea what it meant.... So I put it into a Theosaurus
It still didn't make sense
Well it wouldn't make sense after being consumed by the dinosaur god 'Theosaurus' Being unfamiliar with it, and having such a low IQ, I had no idea what it meant.... So I put it into a Theosaurus
It still didn't make sense
- Streakystreaky said:
Quinny said:
Funny enough..... What with me being such a thicky an all, I had to look up that word (bifurcation)
Being unfamiliar with it, and having such a low IQ, I had no idea what it meant.... So I put it into a Theosaurus
It still didn't make sense
Well it wouldn't make sense after being consumed by the dinosaur god 'Theosaurus' Being unfamiliar with it, and having such a low IQ, I had no idea what it meant.... So I put it into a Theosaurus
It still didn't make sense
- Streaky
I wondered how long it would be before someone pulled Quinny up on that bit of wayward spelling...Streaky wins the coconut!
scenario8 said:
You've gotta love PH, haven't you?
I live in a small cul de sac, which is a private road, marked with signs as "private" and "residents parking only" and the like. This is Greater London, however, and regularly cars are parked within the road that have nowt to do with the residents, and equally regularly residents who each have a share of the freehold of the private land are unable to park on that land due to said non-resident vehicles. Some are regulars, most are chancers.
I live in a live and let live world, but every so often I am irked. Many of the PH massif, of course, see it as their God given right to drive how they like and park as they like, and f*^k everyone else. Pepipoo is their salvation. And even better than that, they will chase all potential legal clauses to prove they can act as they like, all despite what most would see as "natural" justice.
Like I say, you've gotta love PH or you'd stress yourself to an early grave due to the arrogance of some of its members. Thatcher's children abound.
That last sentence is a bit of a reach isn't it? I think you'll find there are aI live in a small cul de sac, which is a private road, marked with signs as "private" and "residents parking only" and the like. This is Greater London, however, and regularly cars are parked within the road that have nowt to do with the residents, and equally regularly residents who each have a share of the freehold of the private land are unable to park on that land due to said non-resident vehicles. Some are regulars, most are chancers.
I live in a live and let live world, but every so often I am irked. Many of the PH massif, of course, see it as their God given right to drive how they like and park as they like, and f*^k everyone else. Pepipoo is their salvation. And even better than that, they will chase all potential legal clauses to prove they can act as they like, all despite what most would see as "natural" justice.
Like I say, you've gotta love PH or you'd stress yourself to an early grave due to the arrogance of some of its members. Thatcher's children abound.
holes of all political leanings around here Trying to blame bad driving behaviour on a PM who left office nearly 2 decades ago and is now somewhat senile would seem to be a rather desperate stretch to shoe-horn the reference in.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff