Woman given £210 worth of parking fines in six days wins battle against Poole council camera cars

Bournemouth Echo: CLAIM: Jo Green has challenged Poole council over three separate mobile CCTV car charges and won CLAIM: Jo Green has challenged Poole council over three separate mobile CCTV car charges and won

A PARKSTONE woman has claimed CCTV camera cars are acting illegally after she had three tickets amounting to £210 quashed on appeal.

Jo Green was issued with three separate penalty charges within six days from Poole Council for parking outside Baden Powell School and she appealed all three successfully.

The Traffic Penalty Tribunal ruled that the penalty charge notices were invalid because there were no information signs to warn motorists and a lack of evidence showing the cars are working to approved guidelines.

Jo said: “I’m taking on Poole council to prove they are acting illegally with these mobile camera cars for a long list of legal and moral reasons.

“I just couldn’t believe it when I received all the tickets within such a short space of time, because I had absolutely no idea that the mobile cars were operating in that area. “I am also concerned there is a breach of data protection because the council can ask the DVLA for personal contact details if they issue a ticket.”

The independent adjudicator ruled in favour of Jo and said: “In each case these contraventions did not occur. These penalty charge notices were not validly issued.

“The council says in its representations that there is no requirement (to provide signs to notify motorists about camera enforcement). The council is incorrect in this assertion.”

Poole council appealed the decision of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, but was unsuccessful.

Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles has said he wants to curb ‘overzealous’ local authorities which use the camera cars to maximise their income from parking fines.

Jason Benjamin, parking services manager at Poole Council said: “The council’s use of the camera car fully conforms to the government’s guidance and legislation relating to CCTV enforcement.

“The camera car only records those vehicles which are parked incorrectly at school zigzags, bus stops, taxi ranks and no loading/waiting areas as these are deemed difficult to enforce by CEOs.

“It is not our policy to comment on individual cases, but we have accepted the adjudicator’s decision and will give careful consideration to their findings.”

Comments (175)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:33am Tue 3 Dec 13

ShuttleX says...

Jason Benjamin, parking services manager at Poole Council said: “The council’s use of the camera car fully conforms to the government’s guidance and legislation relating to CCTV enforcement. .........

Obviously it doesn't, or you wouldn't have lost the case would you? The days of your cash cow are coming to an end it seems.
Jason Benjamin, parking services manager at Poole Council said: “The council’s use of the camera car fully conforms to the government’s guidance and legislation relating to CCTV enforcement. ......... Obviously it doesn't, or you wouldn't have lost the case would you? The days of your cash cow are coming to an end it seems. ShuttleX

5:57am Tue 3 Dec 13

poolequarter says...

Summed up in one word ........ OOOOOPPS !!!!!
Summed up in one word ........ OOOOOPPS !!!!! poolequarter

6:22am Tue 3 Dec 13

manyogie says...

On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then?
Score Jo !
Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`
On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then? Score Jo ! Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph` manyogie

6:31am Tue 3 Dec 13

Chris the plumber says...

When Jo Green parks on a zig zag and a child is injured I am sure she will look at her victory with pride !
When Jo Green parks on a zig zag and a child is injured I am sure she will look at her victory with pride ! Chris the plumber

7:14am Tue 3 Dec 13

Talkingheadera says...

But why don't the council know the law?
Presumably their legal people aren't very good at their jobs and guess who picks up the bill!
But why don't the council know the law? Presumably their legal people aren't very good at their jobs and guess who picks up the bill! Talkingheadera

7:18am Tue 3 Dec 13

alasdair1967 says...

Hang on a second normally when similar stories are published people are screaming for people to be fined ,so according to the Highway Code she was parked illegally yet due to a technicality she gets away with it ,commit the crime pay the fine ,we all know traffic wardens operate in the borough yet there are no signs warning us that they are working ,
Hang on a second normally when similar stories are published people are screaming for people to be fined ,so according to the Highway Code she was parked illegally yet due to a technicality she gets away with it ,commit the crime pay the fine ,we all know traffic wardens operate in the borough yet there are no signs warning us that they are working , alasdair1967

7:20am Tue 3 Dec 13

we-shall-see says...

While I understand the council may have acted without proper authority in this case - does that woman not have any care about where she parks?

I sincerely hope a child is not injured as a result of her parking where the hell she pleases ……… Silly, selfish person - make your lazy child walk a few extra yards and park in the right place!!!
While I understand the council may have acted without proper authority in this case - does that woman not have any care about where she parks? I sincerely hope a child is not injured as a result of her parking where the hell she pleases ……… Silly, selfish person - make your lazy child walk a few extra yards and park in the right place!!! we-shall-see

7:20am Tue 3 Dec 13

Baysider says...

ShuttleX wrote:
Jason Benjamin, parking services manager at Poole Council said: “The council’s use of the camera car fully conforms to the government’s guidance and legislation relating to CCTV enforcement. .........

Obviously it doesn't, or you wouldn't have lost the case would you? The days of your cash cow are coming to an end it seems.
...or the guidance is wrong.
[quote][p][bold]ShuttleX[/bold] wrote: Jason Benjamin, parking services manager at Poole Council said: “The council’s use of the camera car fully conforms to the government’s guidance and legislation relating to CCTV enforcement. ......... Obviously it doesn't, or you wouldn't have lost the case would you? The days of your cash cow are coming to an end it seems.[/p][/quote]...or the guidance is wrong. Baysider

7:24am Tue 3 Dec 13

alasdair1967 says...

I don't normally defend the council but in this case all they are trying to do is increase road safety around schools for the good and benefit of parents and children alike and try to stop idiots like this woman from ILLEGALLY parking outside of schools on the zig zags
I don't normally defend the council but in this case all they are trying to do is increase road safety around schools for the good and benefit of parents and children alike and try to stop idiots like this woman from ILLEGALLY parking outside of schools on the zig zags alasdair1967

7:34am Tue 3 Dec 13

Lord Spring says...

Was it a BMW !!!
Was it a BMW !!! Lord Spring

7:46am Tue 3 Dec 13

alasdair1967 says...

Top tip Poole council send a traffic warden to the Baden Powell school during the school run , she is obviously a serial offender for that many penalty notices to be issued in such a short time
Top tip Poole council send a traffic warden to the Baden Powell school during the school run , she is obviously a serial offender for that many penalty notices to be issued in such a short time alasdair1967

8:25am Tue 3 Dec 13

dorsetspeed says...

Where does it say she parked on a zigzag? "parking outside Baden Powell School" is not necessarily on a zigzag? Wouldn't have thought she would win if she was. We know that these camera cars are just making money and no doubt a thrill for the jobsworths involved, there was even a case where a car being driven was ticketed. We also know that the council are clueless when it comes to making the roads safe and efficient.

Very well done Jo for having the guts to fight it. If we had more people like you the country would not be in the state it's in.
Where does it say she parked on a zigzag? "parking outside Baden Powell School" is not necessarily on a zigzag? Wouldn't have thought she would win if she was. We know that these camera cars are just making money and no doubt a thrill for the jobsworths involved, there was even a case where a car being driven was ticketed. We also know that the council are clueless when it comes to making the roads safe and efficient. Very well done Jo for having the guts to fight it. If we had more people like you the country would not be in the state it's in. dorsetspeed

8:27am Tue 3 Dec 13

alasdair1967 says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Where does it say she parked on a zigzag? "parking outside Baden Powell School" is not necessarily on a zigzag? Wouldn't have thought she would win if she was. We know that these camera cars are just making money and no doubt a thrill for the jobsworths involved, there was even a case where a car being driven was ticketed. We also know that the council are clueless when it comes to making the roads safe and efficient.

Very well done Jo for having the guts to fight it. If we had more people like you the country would not be in the state it's in.
Read the report !!!
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Where does it say she parked on a zigzag? "parking outside Baden Powell School" is not necessarily on a zigzag? Wouldn't have thought she would win if she was. We know that these camera cars are just making money and no doubt a thrill for the jobsworths involved, there was even a case where a car being driven was ticketed. We also know that the council are clueless when it comes to making the roads safe and efficient. Very well done Jo for having the guts to fight it. If we had more people like you the country would not be in the state it's in.[/p][/quote]Read the report !!! alasdair1967

8:33am Tue 3 Dec 13

cherrygood says...

Mobile camera cars, CCTV, traffic wardens, police, all there to protect society and ensure that everyone goes about their business safely and legally.

If you don't break the law you will never have an issue with them. Sadly some people think they are above the law.
Mobile camera cars, CCTV, traffic wardens, police, all there to protect society and ensure that everyone goes about their business safely and legally. If you don't break the law you will never have an issue with them. Sadly some people think they are above the law. cherrygood

8:45am Tue 3 Dec 13

dorsetspeed says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Where does it say she parked on a zigzag? "parking outside Baden Powell School" is not necessarily on a zigzag? Wouldn't have thought she would win if she was. We know that these camera cars are just making money and no doubt a thrill for the jobsworths involved, there was even a case where a car being driven was ticketed. We also know that the council are clueless when it comes to making the roads safe and efficient.

Very well done Jo for having the guts to fight it. If we had more people like you the country would not be in the state it's in.
Read the report !!!
I did, and have done so again. Nowhere does it state that she was on a zigzag. It says "The camera car only records those vehicles which are parked incorrectly at school zigzags, bus stops, taxi ranks ....." but we already know it operates outside of guidelines.
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Where does it say she parked on a zigzag? "parking outside Baden Powell School" is not necessarily on a zigzag? Wouldn't have thought she would win if she was. We know that these camera cars are just making money and no doubt a thrill for the jobsworths involved, there was even a case where a car being driven was ticketed. We also know that the council are clueless when it comes to making the roads safe and efficient. Very well done Jo for having the guts to fight it. If we had more people like you the country would not be in the state it's in.[/p][/quote]Read the report !!![/p][/quote]I did, and have done so again. Nowhere does it state that she was on a zigzag. It says "The camera car only records those vehicles which are parked incorrectly at school zigzags, bus stops, taxi ranks ....." but we already know it operates outside of guidelines. dorsetspeed

8:48am Tue 3 Dec 13

dorsetspeed says...

cherrygood wrote:
Mobile camera cars, CCTV, traffic wardens, police, all there to protect society and ensure that everyone goes about their business safely and legally.

If you don't break the law you will never have an issue with them. Sadly some people think they are above the law.
Where enforcements are used to make money, many will be trapped due to over enthusiastic enforcement who should not be and the primary objective (i.e.safety) will be lost - and the result can be MORE, not LESS danger. Just look at the speed camera industry if you need an example.
[quote][p][bold]cherrygood[/bold] wrote: Mobile camera cars, CCTV, traffic wardens, police, all there to protect society and ensure that everyone goes about their business safely and legally. If you don't break the law you will never have an issue with them. Sadly some people think they are above the law.[/p][/quote]Where enforcements are used to make money, many will be trapped due to over enthusiastic enforcement who should not be and the primary objective (i.e.safety) will be lost - and the result can be MORE, not LESS danger. Just look at the speed camera industry if you need an example. dorsetspeed

8:48am Tue 3 Dec 13

nosuchluck54 says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Where does it say she parked on a zigzag? "parking outside Baden Powell School" is not necessarily on a zigzag? Wouldn't have thought she would win if she was. We know that these camera cars are just making money and no doubt a thrill for the jobsworths involved, there was even a case where a car being driven was ticketed. We also know that the council are clueless when it comes to making the roads safe and efficient.

Very well done Jo for having the guts to fight it. If we had more people like you the country would not be in the state it's in.
Read the report !!!
I did, and have done so again. Nowhere does it state that she was on a zigzag. It says "The camera car only records those vehicles which are parked incorrectly at school zigzags, bus stops, taxi ranks ....." but we already know it operates outside of guidelines.
A lone voice appears that continually makes excuses when people break the law or who behave in a totally unacceptable way to others,no regard to the safety of others whatsoever.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Where does it say she parked on a zigzag? "parking outside Baden Powell School" is not necessarily on a zigzag? Wouldn't have thought she would win if she was. We know that these camera cars are just making money and no doubt a thrill for the jobsworths involved, there was even a case where a car being driven was ticketed. We also know that the council are clueless when it comes to making the roads safe and efficient. Very well done Jo for having the guts to fight it. If we had more people like you the country would not be in the state it's in.[/p][/quote]Read the report !!![/p][/quote]I did, and have done so again. Nowhere does it state that she was on a zigzag. It says "The camera car only records those vehicles which are parked incorrectly at school zigzags, bus stops, taxi ranks ....." but we already know it operates outside of guidelines.[/p][/quote]A lone voice appears that continually makes excuses when people break the law or who behave in a totally unacceptable way to others,no regard to the safety of others whatsoever. nosuchluck54

8:59am Tue 3 Dec 13

boyerboy says...

I often wondered what had happened to Jodie Marsh...............
..............
I often wondered what had happened to Jodie Marsh............... .............. boyerboy

9:01am Tue 3 Dec 13

Baysider says...

A proper paper might have asked whether she knew she shouldn't have been parking on the zig-zags rather than just allowed her to moan about the absence of any signs telling her not to do so.
A proper paper might have asked whether she knew she shouldn't have been parking on the zig-zags rather than just allowed her to moan about the absence of any signs telling her not to do so. Baysider

9:01am Tue 3 Dec 13

In Absentia says...

This woman got away with it due to a technicality over signage. I agree that the Council should get a warden up there for a few days to make sure she gets the fines she deserves. Driving and parking around schools is a problem at certain times of day and we all know it.
This woman got away with it due to a technicality over signage. I agree that the Council should get a warden up there for a few days to make sure she gets the fines she deserves. Driving and parking around schools is a problem at certain times of day and we all know it. In Absentia

9:01am Tue 3 Dec 13

nickynoodah says...

Jo has the beauty of Mrs Beckham
or the face suited to traffic wardens
the world is her clam
Jo has the beauty of Mrs Beckham or the face suited to traffic wardens the world is her clam nickynoodah

9:12am Tue 3 Dec 13

MCAME1989 says...

What these camera cars do recognise is that there is a difference in parking for a long time and stopping for two minutes!
What these camera cars do recognise is that there is a difference in parking for a long time and stopping for two minutes! MCAME1989

9:14am Tue 3 Dec 13

dorsetspeed says...

nosuchluck54 wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Where does it say she parked on a zigzag? "parking outside Baden Powell School" is not necessarily on a zigzag? Wouldn't have thought she would win if she was. We know that these camera cars are just making money and no doubt a thrill for the jobsworths involved, there was even a case where a car being driven was ticketed. We also know that the council are clueless when it comes to making the roads safe and efficient.

Very well done Jo for having the guts to fight it. If we had more people like you the country would not be in the state it's in.
Read the report !!!
I did, and have done so again. Nowhere does it state that she was on a zigzag. It says "The camera car only records those vehicles which are parked incorrectly at school zigzags, bus stops, taxi ranks ....." but we already know it operates outside of guidelines.
A lone voice appears that continually makes excuses when people break the law or who behave in a totally unacceptable way to others,no regard to the safety of others whatsoever.
Breaking the law is not a good way to deal with breaking the law
[quote][p][bold]nosuchluck54[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Where does it say she parked on a zigzag? "parking outside Baden Powell School" is not necessarily on a zigzag? Wouldn't have thought she would win if she was. We know that these camera cars are just making money and no doubt a thrill for the jobsworths involved, there was even a case where a car being driven was ticketed. We also know that the council are clueless when it comes to making the roads safe and efficient. Very well done Jo for having the guts to fight it. If we had more people like you the country would not be in the state it's in.[/p][/quote]Read the report !!![/p][/quote]I did, and have done so again. Nowhere does it state that she was on a zigzag. It says "The camera car only records those vehicles which are parked incorrectly at school zigzags, bus stops, taxi ranks ....." but we already know it operates outside of guidelines.[/p][/quote]A lone voice appears that continually makes excuses when people break the law or who behave in a totally unacceptable way to others,no regard to the safety of others whatsoever.[/p][/quote]Breaking the law is not a good way to deal with breaking the law dorsetspeed

9:15am Tue 3 Dec 13

MCAME1989 says...

And where does it say she was parked on zigzags?
And where does it say she was parked on zigzags? MCAME1989

9:17am Tue 3 Dec 13

Hessenford says...

If this stupid woman did park on the zig zags then she deserves to be fined, on the other hand if Poole council do not follow legal guidelines they deserve to lose the case.
The data protection act states that, You must let people know that they are in an area where CCTV surveillance is being carried out, obviously the council think they are above the data protection act.
As for following government guidelines Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles has said he wants to curb ‘overzealous’ local authorities which use the camera cars to maximise their income from parking fines, that's one obvious guideline that no council wants to follow it seems.
Although this woman did apparently did something stupid, well done to her for taking on the council and this revenue raising camera car and winning, red faced council all round then.
If this stupid woman did park on the zig zags then she deserves to be fined, on the other hand if Poole council do not follow legal guidelines they deserve to lose the case. The data protection act states that, You must let people know that they are in an area where CCTV surveillance is being carried out, obviously the council think they are above the data protection act. As for following government guidelines Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles has said he wants to curb ‘overzealous’ local authorities which use the camera cars to maximise their income from parking fines, that's one obvious guideline that no council wants to follow it seems. Although this woman did apparently did something stupid, well done to her for taking on the council and this revenue raising camera car and winning, red faced council all round then. Hessenford

9:26am Tue 3 Dec 13

alasdair1967 says...

MCAME1989 wrote:
What these camera cars do recognise is that there is a difference in parking for a long time and stopping for two minutes!
What does it matter the more people caught illegally parked on zig zags the better,as these people obviously do not have any consideration towards the safety of other parents or children
[quote][p][bold]MCAME1989[/bold] wrote: What these camera cars do recognise is that there is a difference in parking for a long time and stopping for two minutes![/p][/quote]What does it matter the more people caught illegally parked on zig zags the better,as these people obviously do not have any consideration towards the safety of other parents or children alasdair1967

9:26am Tue 3 Dec 13

Hessenford says...

manyogie wrote:
On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then?
Score Jo !
Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`
Slightly different scenario.
[quote][p][bold]manyogie[/bold] wrote: On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then? Score Jo ! Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`[/p][/quote]Slightly different scenario. Hessenford

9:31am Tue 3 Dec 13

Jo Green says...

manyogie wrote:
On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then?
Score Jo !
Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`
stopped on single yellow line where absolutely no danger posed to anyone, not zigzag
[quote][p][bold]manyogie[/bold] wrote: On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then? Score Jo ! Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`[/p][/quote]stopped on single yellow line where absolutely no danger posed to anyone, not zigzag Jo Green

9:36am Tue 3 Dec 13

nigglygrilly says...

She was obviously parked illegally or the penalty charges would not have been sent out! She has broken the law and got away with it on a technicality! If people did not park illegally, or break speed limits, they would not be fined! As someone else has said, there are no signs stating that traffic wardens may be operating either so why do we need signs saying traffic cars are operating - park illegally or speed or commit any traffic violation and you run the risk of being fined - or has common sense just been blown out of the window! Or do we need signs saying that policemen might catch you using your mobile phone whilst driving too?
She was obviously parked illegally or the penalty charges would not have been sent out! She has broken the law and got away with it on a technicality! If people did not park illegally, or break speed limits, they would not be fined! As someone else has said, there are no signs stating that traffic wardens may be operating either so why do we need signs saying traffic cars are operating - park illegally or speed or commit any traffic violation and you run the risk of being fined - or has common sense just been blown out of the window! Or do we need signs saying that policemen might catch you using your mobile phone whilst driving too? nigglygrilly

9:36am Tue 3 Dec 13

Jo Green says...

manyogie wrote:
On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then?
Score Jo !
Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`
I would like to make it clear that I was not parked on a zigzag - nor was i parked anywhere that posed any danger to anyone. Since the yellow lines were painted, a small road "block" has been created to give a very large safe area for kids to exit the school grounds. I was not within this area.
There aren't even any zigzags at the location!
[quote][p][bold]manyogie[/bold] wrote: On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then? Score Jo ! Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`[/p][/quote]I would like to make it clear that I was not parked on a zigzag - nor was i parked anywhere that posed any danger to anyone. Since the yellow lines were painted, a small road "block" has been created to give a very large safe area for kids to exit the school grounds. I was not within this area. There aren't even any zigzags at the location! Jo Green

9:39am Tue 3 Dec 13

nosuchluck54 says...

Jo Green wrote:
manyogie wrote:
On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then?
Score Jo !
Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`
stopped on single yellow line where absolutely no danger posed to anyone, not zigzag
So you are allowed to park on a single yellow line then ???
[quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]manyogie[/bold] wrote: On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then? Score Jo ! Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`[/p][/quote]stopped on single yellow line where absolutely no danger posed to anyone, not zigzag[/p][/quote]So you are allowed to park on a single yellow line then ??? nosuchluck54

9:46am Tue 3 Dec 13

nickynoodah says...

So you are allowed to park on a single yellow line then ???
Yes you can legally park for hours,
ask no Bath also known as Jeeves
he will put you right.
So you are allowed to park on a single yellow line then ??? Yes you can legally park for hours, ask no Bath also known as Jeeves he will put you right. nickynoodah

9:48am Tue 3 Dec 13

Jo Green says...

nosuchluck54 wrote:
Jo Green wrote:
manyogie wrote:
On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then?
Score Jo !
Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`
stopped on single yellow line where absolutely no danger posed to anyone, not zigzag
So you are allowed to park on a single yellow line then ???
Indeed you can at certain times of day, and when restrictions are in place, boarding and alighting are still allowed.
[quote][p][bold]nosuchluck54[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]manyogie[/bold] wrote: On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then? Score Jo ! Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`[/p][/quote]stopped on single yellow line where absolutely no danger posed to anyone, not zigzag[/p][/quote]So you are allowed to park on a single yellow line then ???[/p][/quote]Indeed you can at certain times of day, and when restrictions are in place, boarding and alighting are still allowed. Jo Green

9:50am Tue 3 Dec 13

PokesdownMark says...

Talkingheadera wrote:
But why don't the council know the law?
Presumably their legal people aren't very good at their jobs and guess who picks up the bill!
You know that new labour introduced many thousands of new laws? Many are contradictory. It simply isn't a case of knowing the law these days. You can ensure you are operating in accordance with lots of laws only to have someone wave another in a court or tribunal and win.

As a country we have our legal shoelaces tied together. We then fall flat on our face.
[quote][p][bold]Talkingheadera[/bold] wrote: But why don't the council know the law? Presumably their legal people aren't very good at their jobs and guess who picks up the bill![/p][/quote]You know that new labour introduced many thousands of new laws? Many are contradictory. It simply isn't a case of knowing the law these days. You can ensure you are operating in accordance with lots of laws only to have someone wave another in a court or tribunal and win. As a country we have our legal shoelaces tied together. We then fall flat on our face. PokesdownMark

9:52am Tue 3 Dec 13

alasdair1967 says...

Jo Green wrote:
manyogie wrote:
On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then?
Score Jo !
Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`
stopped on single yellow line where absolutely no danger posed to anyone, not zigzag
So your own admission you where illegally parked ,parking restrictions apply from 0800 until 1800
[quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]manyogie[/bold] wrote: On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then? Score Jo ! Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`[/p][/quote]stopped on single yellow line where absolutely no danger posed to anyone, not zigzag[/p][/quote]So your own admission you where illegally parked ,parking restrictions apply from 0800 until 1800 alasdair1967

9:53am Tue 3 Dec 13

Hessenford says...

Jo Green wrote:
manyogie wrote:
On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then?
Score Jo !
Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`
I would like to make it clear that I was not parked on a zigzag - nor was i parked anywhere that posed any danger to anyone. Since the yellow lines were painted, a small road "block" has been created to give a very large safe area for kids to exit the school grounds. I was not within this area.
There aren't even any zigzags at the location!
Thanks for the clarification, well done for standing your ground and taking on the revenue raising camera car and congratulations for winning your case.
[quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]manyogie[/bold] wrote: On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then? Score Jo ! Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`[/p][/quote]I would like to make it clear that I was not parked on a zigzag - nor was i parked anywhere that posed any danger to anyone. Since the yellow lines were painted, a small road "block" has been created to give a very large safe area for kids to exit the school grounds. I was not within this area. There aren't even any zigzags at the location![/p][/quote]Thanks for the clarification, well done for standing your ground and taking on the revenue raising camera car and congratulations for winning your case. Hessenford

9:54am Tue 3 Dec 13

Jo Green says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
Jo Green wrote:
manyogie wrote:
On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then?
Score Jo !
Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`
stopped on single yellow line where absolutely no danger posed to anyone, not zigzag
So your own admission you where illegally parked ,parking restrictions apply from 0800 until 1800
incorrect on both counts!
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]manyogie[/bold] wrote: On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then? Score Jo ! Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`[/p][/quote]stopped on single yellow line where absolutely no danger posed to anyone, not zigzag[/p][/quote]So your own admission you where illegally parked ,parking restrictions apply from 0800 until 1800[/p][/quote]incorrect on both counts! Jo Green

9:55am Tue 3 Dec 13

BarrHumbug says...

Don't park illegally, don't get a ticket, its not rocket science!
So she's not disputing the fact she parked illegally just that she should have been warned she could have got fined for it when she ignored the road markings, err hello? Thats what those markings on the road and kerbs mean, their not just there for decoration, are they not enough of a warning that you could get a ticket?. It's like telling the police in an unmarked car that they have no right to nick you because they didn't give sufficient notice!
Don't park illegally, don't get a ticket, its not rocket science! So she's not disputing the fact she parked illegally just that she should have been warned she could have got fined for it when she ignored the road markings, err hello? Thats what those markings on the road and kerbs mean, their not just there for decoration, are they not enough of a warning that you could get a ticket?. It's like telling the police in an unmarked car that they have no right to nick you because they didn't give sufficient notice! BarrHumbug

9:56am Tue 3 Dec 13

wonkywilly says...

nosuchluck54 wrote:
Jo Green wrote:
manyogie wrote:
On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then?
Score Jo !
Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`
stopped on single yellow line where absolutely no danger posed to anyone, not zigzag
So you are allowed to park on a single yellow line then ???
A single yellow line is a road marking that is present on the side of the carriageway in the United Kingdom. It indicates that parking or waiting at that roadside is prohibited at certain times of day. The exact times vary by area and are indicated by signs at the roadside. Stopping to load and to pick up or set down passengers is generally allowed unless additional restrictions apply
[quote][p][bold]nosuchluck54[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]manyogie[/bold] wrote: On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then? Score Jo ! Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`[/p][/quote]stopped on single yellow line where absolutely no danger posed to anyone, not zigzag[/p][/quote]So you are allowed to park on a single yellow line then ???[/p][/quote]A single yellow line is a road marking that is present on the side of the carriageway in the United Kingdom. It indicates that parking or waiting at that roadside is prohibited at certain times of day. The exact times vary by area and are indicated by signs at the roadside. Stopping to load and to pick up or set down passengers is generally allowed unless additional restrictions apply wonkywilly

9:56am Tue 3 Dec 13

PokesdownMark says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
Hang on a second normally when similar stories are published people are screaming for people to be fined ,so according to the Highway Code she was parked illegally yet due to a technicality she gets away with it ,commit the crime pay the fine ,we all know traffic wardens operate in the borough yet there are no signs warning us that they are working ,
No. If the council has sent a traffic warden they would have been able to ticket her. Or better, if the police attended they would have been able to issue a penalty.

But the council simply drove past in with a camera and then sent a fine by post a few days later. That has been judged to not be a valid way of dealing with the issue. I agree with that.

I think people that STOP on zig-zags (stopping and parking being two different things) deserve to be properly dealt with. Which means an appropriately trained and knowledgeable person on the scene. Hopefully delivery an experience that stops them doing it again!

What I fear we may end up with now is yet another set of warning signs sprouting like weeds!
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: Hang on a second normally when similar stories are published people are screaming for people to be fined ,so according to the Highway Code she was parked illegally yet due to a technicality she gets away with it ,commit the crime pay the fine ,we all know traffic wardens operate in the borough yet there are no signs warning us that they are working ,[/p][/quote]No. If the council has sent a traffic warden they would have been able to ticket her. Or better, if the police attended they would have been able to issue a penalty. But the council simply drove past in with a camera and then sent a fine by post a few days later. That has been judged to not be a valid way of dealing with the issue. I agree with that. I think people that STOP on zig-zags (stopping and parking being two different things) deserve to be properly dealt with. Which means an appropriately trained and knowledgeable person on the scene. Hopefully delivery an experience that stops them doing it again! What I fear we may end up with now is yet another set of warning signs sprouting like weeds! PokesdownMark

9:57am Tue 3 Dec 13

retry69 says...

Gosh these rehearsals are taking it out of me.anyway GOOD NEWS away from this womans hard done by rant,(there is nearly one a day now,its becoming an agony aunt paper this)there are still parts available in the Echo commenters panto this year and seeing there seems to be many spare wotsits on this thread please apply asap.Many Thanks :)
Gosh these rehearsals are taking it out of me.anyway GOOD NEWS away from this womans hard done by rant,(there is nearly one a day now,its becoming an agony aunt paper this)there are still parts available in the Echo commenters panto this year and seeing there seems to be many spare wotsits on this thread please apply asap.Many Thanks :) retry69

9:59am Tue 3 Dec 13

wonkywilly says...

wonkywilly wrote:
nosuchluck54 wrote:
Jo Green wrote:
manyogie wrote:
On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then?
Score Jo !
Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`
stopped on single yellow line where absolutely no danger posed to anyone, not zigzag
So you are allowed to park on a single yellow line then ???
A single yellow line is a road marking that is present on the side of the carriageway in the United Kingdom. It indicates that parking or waiting at that roadside is prohibited at certain times of day. The exact times vary by area and are indicated by signs at the roadside. Stopping to load and to pick up or set down passengers is generally allowed unless additional restrictions apply
And nosuchluck54 is either not a driver - or needs to refresh him/her self on the Highway Code.
[quote][p][bold]wonkywilly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nosuchluck54[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]manyogie[/bold] wrote: On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then? Score Jo ! Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`[/p][/quote]stopped on single yellow line where absolutely no danger posed to anyone, not zigzag[/p][/quote]So you are allowed to park on a single yellow line then ???[/p][/quote]A single yellow line is a road marking that is present on the side of the carriageway in the United Kingdom. It indicates that parking or waiting at that roadside is prohibited at certain times of day. The exact times vary by area and are indicated by signs at the roadside. Stopping to load and to pick up or set down passengers is generally allowed unless additional restrictions apply[/p][/quote]And nosuchluck54 is either not a driver - or needs to refresh him/her self on the Highway Code. wonkywilly

10:02am Tue 3 Dec 13

Hessenford says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
Hang on a second normally when similar stories are published people are screaming for people to be fined ,so according to the Highway Code she was parked illegally yet due to a technicality she gets away with it ,commit the crime pay the fine ,we all know traffic wardens operate in the borough yet there are no signs warning us that they are working ,
Data protection act covers cctv use, no need to advertise pa.rking attendants
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: Hang on a second normally when similar stories are published people are screaming for people to be fined ,so according to the Highway Code she was parked illegally yet due to a technicality she gets away with it ,commit the crime pay the fine ,we all know traffic wardens operate in the borough yet there are no signs warning us that they are working ,[/p][/quote]Data protection act covers cctv use, no need to advertise pa.rking attendants Hessenford

10:03am Tue 3 Dec 13

dorsetspeed says...

BarrHumbug wrote:
Don't park illegally, don't get a ticket, its not rocket science!
So she's not disputing the fact she parked illegally just that she should have been warned she could have got fined for it when she ignored the road markings, err hello? Thats what those markings on the road and kerbs mean, their not just there for decoration, are they not enough of a warning that you could get a ticket?. It's like telling the police in an unmarked car that they have no right to nick you because they didn't give sufficient notice!
Actually, if you read what she has written, she IS disputing the fact she parked illegally
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: Don't park illegally, don't get a ticket, its not rocket science! So she's not disputing the fact she parked illegally just that she should have been warned she could have got fined for it when she ignored the road markings, err hello? Thats what those markings on the road and kerbs mean, their not just there for decoration, are they not enough of a warning that you could get a ticket?. It's like telling the police in an unmarked car that they have no right to nick you because they didn't give sufficient notice![/p][/quote]Actually, if you read what she has written, she IS disputing the fact she parked illegally dorsetspeed

10:04am Tue 3 Dec 13

nosuchluck54 says...

wonkywilly wrote:
wonkywilly wrote:
nosuchluck54 wrote:
Jo Green wrote:
manyogie wrote:
On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then?
Score Jo !
Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`
stopped on single yellow line where absolutely no danger posed to anyone, not zigzag
So you are allowed to park on a single yellow line then ???
A single yellow line is a road marking that is present on the side of the carriageway in the United Kingdom. It indicates that parking or waiting at that roadside is prohibited at certain times of day. The exact times vary by area and are indicated by signs at the roadside. Stopping to load and to pick up or set down passengers is generally allowed unless additional restrictions apply
And nosuchluck54 is either not a driver - or needs to refresh him/her self on the Highway Code.
Correct on both accounts
[quote][p][bold]wonkywilly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wonkywilly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nosuchluck54[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]manyogie[/bold] wrote: On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then? Score Jo ! Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`[/p][/quote]stopped on single yellow line where absolutely no danger posed to anyone, not zigzag[/p][/quote]So you are allowed to park on a single yellow line then ???[/p][/quote]A single yellow line is a road marking that is present on the side of the carriageway in the United Kingdom. It indicates that parking or waiting at that roadside is prohibited at certain times of day. The exact times vary by area and are indicated by signs at the roadside. Stopping to load and to pick up or set down passengers is generally allowed unless additional restrictions apply[/p][/quote]And nosuchluck54 is either not a driver - or needs to refresh him/her self on the Highway Code.[/p][/quote]Correct on both accounts nosuchluck54

10:08am Tue 3 Dec 13

LordLilliput says...

I'm sure it's a nothing more than camera angle and lighting but errrr.. has the Echo photographer captured a little more than was intended in this shot?
I'm sure it's a nothing more than camera angle and lighting but errrr.. has the Echo photographer captured a little more than was intended in this shot? LordLilliput

10:14am Tue 3 Dec 13

poolequarter says...

JO GREEN ... one of hundreds of parents who park illegally every morning and afternoon because they are too lazy to either walk their children to school or can`t be bothered parking legally, a little further away, and walking to the school. Lets hope no child is injured because of your lazy selfish actions. I also hope you get peppered with tickets and are forced to pay them .... you deserve them all ....LAZY IDLE JO GREEN !!!!!
JO GREEN ... one of hundreds of parents who park illegally every morning and afternoon because they are too lazy to either walk their children to school or can`t be bothered parking legally, a little further away, and walking to the school. Lets hope no child is injured because of your lazy selfish actions. I also hope you get peppered with tickets and are forced to pay them .... you deserve them all ....LAZY IDLE JO GREEN !!!!! poolequarter

10:22am Tue 3 Dec 13

BarrHumbug says...

wonkywilly wrote:
nosuchluck54 wrote:
Jo Green wrote:
manyogie wrote:
On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then?
Score Jo !
Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`
stopped on single yellow line where absolutely no danger posed to anyone, not zigzag
So you are allowed to park on a single yellow line then ???
A single yellow line is a road marking that is present on the side of the carriageway in the United Kingdom. It indicates that parking or waiting at that roadside is prohibited at certain times of day. The exact times vary by area and are indicated by signs at the roadside. Stopping to load and to pick up or set down passengers is generally allowed unless additional restrictions apply
Windsor Rd is clearly marked - No Parking 8am -10am & 2pm - 4pm, 31 Aug - 23 July also no loading/unloading so that includes your kids, these signs are backed up by the single yellow lines on the road and the yellow dashes on the kerbs.
It is not for the person in question to decide whether they think it is safe or not, obviously her grievance is that had she been ticketed by a traffic warden she may not have flouted the law every day after that, picking up another two tickets?
[quote][p][bold]wonkywilly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nosuchluck54[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]manyogie[/bold] wrote: On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then? Score Jo ! Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`[/p][/quote]stopped on single yellow line where absolutely no danger posed to anyone, not zigzag[/p][/quote]So you are allowed to park on a single yellow line then ???[/p][/quote]A single yellow line is a road marking that is present on the side of the carriageway in the United Kingdom. It indicates that parking or waiting at that roadside is prohibited at certain times of day. The exact times vary by area and are indicated by signs at the roadside. Stopping to load and to pick up or set down passengers is generally allowed unless additional restrictions apply[/p][/quote]Windsor Rd is clearly marked - No Parking 8am -10am & 2pm - 4pm, 31 Aug - 23 July also no loading/unloading so that includes your kids, these signs are backed up by the single yellow lines on the road and the yellow dashes on the kerbs. It is not for the person in question to decide whether they think it is safe or not, obviously her grievance is that had she been ticketed by a traffic warden she may not have flouted the law every day after that, picking up another two tickets? BarrHumbug

10:25am Tue 3 Dec 13

BarrHumbug says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
Don't park illegally, don't get a ticket, its not rocket science!
So she's not disputing the fact she parked illegally just that she should have been warned she could have got fined for it when she ignored the road markings, err hello? Thats what those markings on the road and kerbs mean, their not just there for decoration, are they not enough of a warning that you could get a ticket?. It's like telling the police in an unmarked car that they have no right to nick you because they didn't give sufficient notice!
Actually, if you read what she has written, she IS disputing the fact she parked illegally
No she's just saying that she thought it was safe so the law doesn't apply to her.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: Don't park illegally, don't get a ticket, its not rocket science! So she's not disputing the fact she parked illegally just that she should have been warned she could have got fined for it when she ignored the road markings, err hello? Thats what those markings on the road and kerbs mean, their not just there for decoration, are they not enough of a warning that you could get a ticket?. It's like telling the police in an unmarked car that they have no right to nick you because they didn't give sufficient notice![/p][/quote]Actually, if you read what she has written, she IS disputing the fact she parked illegally[/p][/quote]No she's just saying that she thought it was safe so the law doesn't apply to her. BarrHumbug

10:26am Tue 3 Dec 13

utciad says...

we-shall-see wrote:
While I understand the council may have acted without proper authority in this case - does that woman not have any care about where she parks?

I sincerely hope a child is not injured as a result of her parking where the hell she pleases ……… Silly, selfish person - make your lazy child walk a few extra yards and park in the right place!!!
Trouble here is now 'If she can get away with it, we all can' so there will be ignorant and stupid self-centred parents doing as they like wherever they like now.
Obviously this woman has no conscience whatsoever. Hope someone does the same to her one day, and puts her dear little one in danger....then let's hear her scream!!

But of course, ALL laws apply to everyone else, BUT never to us, don't they...

This has just shown her up for what she really is, ignorant and selfish...
[quote][p][bold]we-shall-see[/bold] wrote: While I understand the council may have acted without proper authority in this case - does that woman not have any care about where she parks? I sincerely hope a child is not injured as a result of her parking where the hell she pleases ……… Silly, selfish person - make your lazy child walk a few extra yards and park in the right place!!![/p][/quote]Trouble here is now 'If she can get away with it, we all can' so there will be ignorant and stupid self-centred parents doing as they like wherever they like now. Obviously this woman has no conscience whatsoever. Hope someone does the same to her one day, and puts her dear little one in danger....then let's hear her scream!! But of course, ALL laws apply to everyone else, BUT never to us, don't they... This has just shown her up for what she really is, ignorant and selfish... utciad

10:28am Tue 3 Dec 13

scrumpyjack says...

LordLilliput wrote:
I'm sure it's a nothing more than camera angle and lighting but errrr.. has the Echo photographer captured a little more than was intended in this shot?
What? Her bare faced cheek?
[quote][p][bold]LordLilliput[/bold] wrote: I'm sure it's a nothing more than camera angle and lighting but errrr.. has the Echo photographer captured a little more than was intended in this shot?[/p][/quote]What? Her bare faced cheek? scrumpyjack

10:30am Tue 3 Dec 13

utciad says...

Jo Green wrote:
manyogie wrote:
On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then?
Score Jo !
Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`
stopped on single yellow line where absolutely no danger posed to anyone, not zigzag
Single yellow line : parking restricted during the hours marked on signage. If you see yellow line(s) then you should make yourself aware of the restriction times. If you don't and get caught...TOUGH!!
[quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]manyogie[/bold] wrote: On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then? Score Jo ! Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`[/p][/quote]stopped on single yellow line where absolutely no danger posed to anyone, not zigzag[/p][/quote]Single yellow line : parking restricted during the hours marked on signage. If you see yellow line(s) then you should make yourself aware of the restriction times. If you don't and get caught...TOUGH!! utciad

10:32am Tue 3 Dec 13

Hessenford says...

utciad wrote:
we-shall-see wrote:
While I understand the council may have acted without proper authority in this case - does that woman not have any care about where she parks?

I sincerely hope a child is not injured as a result of her parking where the hell she pleases ……… Silly, selfish person - make your lazy child walk a few extra yards and park in the right place!!!
Trouble here is now 'If she can get away with it, we all can' so there will be ignorant and stupid self-centred parents doing as they like wherever they like now.
Obviously this woman has no conscience whatsoever. Hope someone does the same to her one day, and puts her dear little one in danger....then let's hear her scream!!

But of course, ALL laws apply to everyone else, BUT never to us, don't they...

This has just shown her up for what she really is, ignorant and selfish...
Yes laws apply to everyone even councils, if they flout the laws then people have the right to challenge them, as in this case, or do you believe that councils should not abide by the law.
[quote][p][bold]utciad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we-shall-see[/bold] wrote: While I understand the council may have acted without proper authority in this case - does that woman not have any care about where she parks? I sincerely hope a child is not injured as a result of her parking where the hell she pleases ……… Silly, selfish person - make your lazy child walk a few extra yards and park in the right place!!![/p][/quote]Trouble here is now 'If she can get away with it, we all can' so there will be ignorant and stupid self-centred parents doing as they like wherever they like now. Obviously this woman has no conscience whatsoever. Hope someone does the same to her one day, and puts her dear little one in danger....then let's hear her scream!! But of course, ALL laws apply to everyone else, BUT never to us, don't they... This has just shown her up for what she really is, ignorant and selfish...[/p][/quote]Yes laws apply to everyone even councils, if they flout the laws then people have the right to challenge them, as in this case, or do you believe that councils should not abide by the law. Hessenford

10:33am Tue 3 Dec 13

Patlad says...

Another arrogant Lady who thinks Road Safety regulations are made simply to annoy Her.
Another arrogant Lady who thinks Road Safety regulations are made simply to annoy Her. Patlad

10:36am Tue 3 Dec 13

retry69 says...

poolequarter wrote:
JO GREEN ... one of hundreds of parents who park illegally every morning and afternoon because they are too lazy to either walk their children to school or can`t be bothered parking legally, a little further away, and walking to the school. Lets hope no child is injured because of your lazy selfish actions. I also hope you get peppered with tickets and are forced to pay them .... you deserve them all ....LAZY IDLE JO GREEN !!!!!
Look im fed up with all this pandering to the "poor motorist" JUST SAY WHAT YOU MEAN and be done with it,
[quote][p][bold]poolequarter[/bold] wrote: JO GREEN ... one of hundreds of parents who park illegally every morning and afternoon because they are too lazy to either walk their children to school or can`t be bothered parking legally, a little further away, and walking to the school. Lets hope no child is injured because of your lazy selfish actions. I also hope you get peppered with tickets and are forced to pay them .... you deserve them all ....LAZY IDLE JO GREEN !!!!![/p][/quote]Look im fed up with all this pandering to the "poor motorist" JUST SAY WHAT YOU MEAN and be done with it, retry69

10:36am Tue 3 Dec 13

Callie72 says...

i get fed up with parents parking where and when they choose blocking peoples driveways, on double yellows, right outside school gates opening car doors without checking that someone is walking past i can go on, the councils should have traffic wardens in place at all schools giving out fines till all people realise where they are supposed to park and not. Next time council make sure she and others pay their fines.
i get fed up with parents parking where and when they choose blocking peoples driveways, on double yellows, right outside school gates opening car doors without checking that someone is walking past i can go on, the councils should have traffic wardens in place at all schools giving out fines till all people realise where they are supposed to park and not. Next time council make sure she and others pay their fines. Callie72

10:40am Tue 3 Dec 13

nickynoodah says...

The CCTV camera car only chose Jo for her beauty and remarkable likeness of Mrs Beckham
Soon Jo may be able to pay some one to ferry her kids to and from school
while she is in London as a fashion model earning millions
best of luck Jo
ignore George @ no bath.co.co.you know
The CCTV camera car only chose Jo for her beauty and remarkable likeness of Mrs Beckham Soon Jo may be able to pay some one to ferry her kids to and from school while she is in London as a fashion model earning millions best of luck Jo ignore George @ no bath.co.co.you know nickynoodah

10:40am Tue 3 Dec 13

static kill says...

She looks the type.
She looks the type. static kill

10:50am Tue 3 Dec 13

speedy231278 says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
I don't normally defend the council but in this case all they are trying to do is increase road safety around schools for the good and benefit of parents and children alike and try to stop idiots like this woman from ILLEGALLY parking outside of schools on the zig zags
So, does this mean ALL fines dished out by these £70K revenue generators are illegal then, and should be refunded?
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: I don't normally defend the council but in this case all they are trying to do is increase road safety around schools for the good and benefit of parents and children alike and try to stop idiots like this woman from ILLEGALLY parking outside of schools on the zig zags[/p][/quote]So, does this mean ALL fines dished out by these £70K revenue generators are illegal then, and should be refunded? speedy231278

10:56am Tue 3 Dec 13

Frank28 says...

Everyone should appeal against every parking ticket. See how the Council deals with that!
Everyone should appeal against every parking ticket. See how the Council deals with that! Frank28

11:02am Tue 3 Dec 13

poolequarter says...

nickynoodah wrote:
The CCTV camera car only chose Jo for her beauty and remarkable likeness of Mrs Beckham
Soon Jo may be able to pay some one to ferry her kids to and from school
while she is in London as a fashion model earning millions
best of luck Jo
ignore George @ no bath.co.co.you know
"beauty and remarkable likeness of Mrs Beckham" ...... have you been drinking??? She is no beauty and bears no similarity to Mrs Beckham!!!
[quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: The CCTV camera car only chose Jo for her beauty and remarkable likeness of Mrs Beckham Soon Jo may be able to pay some one to ferry her kids to and from school while she is in London as a fashion model earning millions best of luck Jo ignore George @ no bath.co.co.you know[/p][/quote]"beauty and remarkable likeness of Mrs Beckham" ...... have you been drinking??? She is no beauty and bears no similarity to Mrs Beckham!!! poolequarter

11:02am Tue 3 Dec 13

suzigirl says...

retry69 wrote:
Gosh these rehearsals are taking it out of me.anyway GOOD NEWS away from this womans hard done by rant,(there is nearly one a day now,its becoming an agony aunt paper this)there are still parts available in the Echo commenters panto this year and seeing there seems to be many spare wotsits on this thread please apply asap.Many Thanks :)
You should dress up as a clown!
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Gosh these rehearsals are taking it out of me.anyway GOOD NEWS away from this womans hard done by rant,(there is nearly one a day now,its becoming an agony aunt paper this)there are still parts available in the Echo commenters panto this year and seeing there seems to be many spare wotsits on this thread please apply asap.Many Thanks :)[/p][/quote]You should dress up as a clown! suzigirl

11:08am Tue 3 Dec 13

nickynoodah says...

I will remember george as a larger-than-life character with a true gift for story-telling who could have everyone ROFL its so sad that he has ****** off at a moment's notice.
I will remember george as a larger-than-life character with a true gift for story-telling who could have everyone ROFL its so sad that he has ****** off at a moment's notice. nickynoodah

11:08am Tue 3 Dec 13

retry69 says...

suzigirl wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Gosh these rehearsals are taking it out of me.anyway GOOD NEWS away from this womans hard done by rant,(there is nearly one a day now,its becoming an agony aunt paper this)there are still parts available in the Echo commenters panto this year and seeing there seems to be many spare wotsits on this thread please apply asap.Many Thanks :)
You should dress up as a clown!
Look woman I am playing Snow White and if I get this off the ground I expect you to take me round Bournemouth on the back of your bike dressed in your leathers of course ;) Now what part could you play mmmmmmmm
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Gosh these rehearsals are taking it out of me.anyway GOOD NEWS away from this womans hard done by rant,(there is nearly one a day now,its becoming an agony aunt paper this)there are still parts available in the Echo commenters panto this year and seeing there seems to be many spare wotsits on this thread please apply asap.Many Thanks :)[/p][/quote]You should dress up as a clown![/p][/quote]Look woman I am playing Snow White and if I get this off the ground I expect you to take me round Bournemouth on the back of your bike dressed in your leathers of course ;) Now what part could you play mmmmmmmm retry69

11:24am Tue 3 Dec 13

Dibbles2 says...

I often think that these cars pick and choose who they fine as do traffic wardens and the police. A prime example being a local business to me who have between 6 - 10 cars parked the wrong way in a one way street all day every day. The maximum parking in this road is actually 2 hours. At some point they must have driven the wrong way down the road but nobody seems particularly bothered about it despite the fact it affects local business as there is little other space to park.
I often think that these cars pick and choose who they fine as do traffic wardens and the police. A prime example being a local business to me who have between 6 - 10 cars parked the wrong way in a one way street all day every day. The maximum parking in this road is actually 2 hours. At some point they must have driven the wrong way down the road but nobody seems particularly bothered about it despite the fact it affects local business as there is little other space to park. Dibbles2

11:24am Tue 3 Dec 13

Hessenford says...

speedy231278 wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote:
I don't normally defend the council but in this case all they are trying to do is increase road safety around schools for the good and benefit of parents and children alike and try to stop idiots like this woman from ILLEGALLY parking outside of schools on the zig zags
So, does this mean ALL fines dished out by these £70K revenue generators are illegal then, and should be refunded?
Hopefully.
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: I don't normally defend the council but in this case all they are trying to do is increase road safety around schools for the good and benefit of parents and children alike and try to stop idiots like this woman from ILLEGALLY parking outside of schools on the zig zags[/p][/quote]So, does this mean ALL fines dished out by these £70K revenue generators are illegal then, and should be refunded?[/p][/quote]Hopefully. Hessenford

11:26am Tue 3 Dec 13

Hessenford says...

Callie72 wrote:
i get fed up with parents parking where and when they choose blocking peoples driveways, on double yellows, right outside school gates opening car doors without checking that someone is walking past i can go on, the councils should have traffic wardens in place at all schools giving out fines till all people realise where they are supposed to park and not. Next time council make sure she and others pay their fines.
Don't be daft, that would mean a visual deterrent which would generate no revenue what so ever for the council, that's why they use covert cars like this one, albeit illegally it seems.
[quote][p][bold]Callie72[/bold] wrote: i get fed up with parents parking where and when they choose blocking peoples driveways, on double yellows, right outside school gates opening car doors without checking that someone is walking past i can go on, the councils should have traffic wardens in place at all schools giving out fines till all people realise where they are supposed to park and not. Next time council make sure she and others pay their fines.[/p][/quote]Don't be daft, that would mean a visual deterrent which would generate no revenue what so ever for the council, that's why they use covert cars like this one, albeit illegally it seems. Hessenford

11:28am Tue 3 Dec 13

Lord Spring says...

retry69 wrote:
suzigirl wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Gosh these rehearsals are taking it out of me.anyway GOOD NEWS away from this womans hard done by rant,(there is nearly one a day now,its becoming an agony aunt paper this)there are still parts available in the Echo commenters panto this year and seeing there seems to be many spare wotsits on this thread please apply asap.Many Thanks :)
You should dress up as a clown!
Look woman I am playing Snow White and if I get this off the ground I expect you to take me round Bournemouth on the back of your bike dressed in your leathers of course ;) Now what part could you play mmmmmmmm
You Snow White I thought you were auditioning for one of the 7 dwarfs.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Gosh these rehearsals are taking it out of me.anyway GOOD NEWS away from this womans hard done by rant,(there is nearly one a day now,its becoming an agony aunt paper this)there are still parts available in the Echo commenters panto this year and seeing there seems to be many spare wotsits on this thread please apply asap.Many Thanks :)[/p][/quote]You should dress up as a clown![/p][/quote]Look woman I am playing Snow White and if I get this off the ground I expect you to take me round Bournemouth on the back of your bike dressed in your leathers of course ;) Now what part could you play mmmmmmmm[/p][/quote]You Snow White I thought you were auditioning for one of the 7 dwarfs. Lord Spring

11:32am Tue 3 Dec 13

bmthmark says...

nickynoodah wrote:
I will remember george as a larger-than-life character with a true gift for story-telling who could have everyone ROFL its so sad that he has ****** off at a moment's notice.
What are you on about? who is George? lol
[quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: I will remember george as a larger-than-life character with a true gift for story-telling who could have everyone ROFL its so sad that he has ****** off at a moment's notice.[/p][/quote]What are you on about? who is George? lol bmthmark

11:33am Tue 3 Dec 13

retry69 says...

I firmly believe that these individuals that see themselves above any laws and regulations should be compelled to wear a coloured flashing beacon on their heads when out to alert the normal public of their proximity and then they can be avoided at all costs.The only down side would be the extra long queue at the newsagent ;)
I firmly believe that these individuals that see themselves above any laws and regulations should be compelled to wear a coloured flashing beacon on their heads when out to alert the normal public of their proximity and then they can be avoided at all costs.The only down side would be the extra long queue at the newsagent ;) retry69

11:33am Tue 3 Dec 13

poolequarter says...

What I also fail to understand is how does one person operate one of these camera cars. We are advised against operating mobile phones, Satnav`s, radios, CD players, cigarette lighters etc etc etc (All of which I fully agree with) ... BUT ... one person can operate a camera car??? Explanation please??? Must be able to multi task like these women who drive around on their mobile phone whilst at the same time doing their hair and make up!!!! There are loads of them!!!
What I also fail to understand is how does one person operate one of these camera cars. We are advised against operating mobile phones, Satnav`s, radios, CD players, cigarette lighters etc etc etc (All of which I fully agree with) ... BUT ... one person can operate a camera car??? Explanation please??? Must be able to multi task like these women who drive around on their mobile phone whilst at the same time doing their hair and make up!!!! There are loads of them!!! poolequarter

11:45am Tue 3 Dec 13

BIGTONE says...

“The camera car only records those vehicles which are parked incorrectly at school zigzags, bus stops, taxi ranks and no loading/waiting areas as these are deemed difficult to enforce by CEOs."

That's any yellow line as well in the whole of the Borough then!
“The camera car only records those vehicles which are parked incorrectly at school zigzags, bus stops, taxi ranks and no loading/waiting areas as these are deemed difficult to enforce by CEOs." That's any yellow line as well in the whole of the Borough then! BIGTONE

11:45am Tue 3 Dec 13

retry69 says...

Lord Spring wrote:
retry69 wrote:
suzigirl wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Gosh these rehearsals are taking it out of me.anyway GOOD NEWS away from this womans hard done by rant,(there is nearly one a day now,its becoming an agony aunt paper this)there are still parts available in the Echo commenters panto this year and seeing there seems to be many spare wotsits on this thread please apply asap.Many Thanks :)
You should dress up as a clown!
Look woman I am playing Snow White and if I get this off the ground I expect you to take me round Bournemouth on the back of your bike dressed in your leathers of course ;) Now what part could you play mmmmmmmm
You Snow White I thought you were auditioning for one of the 7 dwarfs.
Look you need to pay attention, I have already pointed out the problem, we were overwhelmed with applicants for Dopey and Grumpy but were and still are struggling for commenters to play Bashful and Happy there is actually a dead lock between two regular commenters for Dopey and Grumpy and im pleased to inform you it is neither yourself or Musclifman till the next time :)
[quote][p][bold]Lord Spring[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Gosh these rehearsals are taking it out of me.anyway GOOD NEWS away from this womans hard done by rant,(there is nearly one a day now,its becoming an agony aunt paper this)there are still parts available in the Echo commenters panto this year and seeing there seems to be many spare wotsits on this thread please apply asap.Many Thanks :)[/p][/quote]You should dress up as a clown![/p][/quote]Look woman I am playing Snow White and if I get this off the ground I expect you to take me round Bournemouth on the back of your bike dressed in your leathers of course ;) Now what part could you play mmmmmmmm[/p][/quote]You Snow White I thought you were auditioning for one of the 7 dwarfs.[/p][/quote]Look you need to pay attention, I have already pointed out the problem, we were overwhelmed with applicants for Dopey and Grumpy but were and still are struggling for commenters to play Bashful and Happy there is actually a dead lock between two regular commenters for Dopey and Grumpy and im pleased to inform you it is neither yourself or Musclifman till the next time :) retry69

11:58am Tue 3 Dec 13

djd says...

Surely this lovely lady has to ask herself why she got the tickets in the first place? She stopped on the markings outside of a school to the danger of all the children.
I really don't see her victory here.
Surely this lovely lady has to ask herself why she got the tickets in the first place? She stopped on the markings outside of a school to the danger of all the children. I really don't see her victory here. djd

12:11pm Tue 3 Dec 13

BarrHumbug says...

BIGTONE wrote:
“The camera car only records those vehicles which are parked incorrectly at school zigzags, bus stops, taxi ranks and no loading/waiting areas as these are deemed difficult to enforce by CEOs."

That's any yellow line as well in the whole of the Borough then!
Where she parked is not only a single yellow line but also no loading/waiting area as clearly marked on the sign and road and kerbstone markings.
[quote][p][bold]BIGTONE[/bold] wrote: “The camera car only records those vehicles which are parked incorrectly at school zigzags, bus stops, taxi ranks and no loading/waiting areas as these are deemed difficult to enforce by CEOs." That's any yellow line as well in the whole of the Borough then![/p][/quote]Where she parked is not only a single yellow line but also no loading/waiting area as clearly marked on the sign and road and kerbstone markings. BarrHumbug

12:13pm Tue 3 Dec 13

kdub72 says...

poolequarter wrote:
JO GREEN ... one of hundreds of parents who park illegally every morning and afternoon because they are too lazy to either walk their children to school or can`t be bothered parking legally, a little further away, and walking to the school. Lets hope no child is injured because of your lazy selfish actions. I also hope you get peppered with tickets and are forced to pay them .... you deserve them all ....LAZY IDLE JO GREEN !!!!!
You took the words right out of our mouths.
[quote][p][bold]poolequarter[/bold] wrote: JO GREEN ... one of hundreds of parents who park illegally every morning and afternoon because they are too lazy to either walk their children to school or can`t be bothered parking legally, a little further away, and walking to the school. Lets hope no child is injured because of your lazy selfish actions. I also hope you get peppered with tickets and are forced to pay them .... you deserve them all ....LAZY IDLE JO GREEN !!!!![/p][/quote]You took the words right out of our mouths. kdub72

12:50pm Tue 3 Dec 13

InkZ says...

Moral reasons LOLOLOLOL.

Get over yourself
Moral reasons LOLOLOLOL. Get over yourself InkZ

12:52pm Tue 3 Dec 13

baylin says...

Selfish cow should not be parking outside school another person who thinks that the rules the rest of us abide by don't apply to her. Every one knows that you don't park on zig zag lines outside a school.
Selfish cow should not be parking outside school another person who thinks that the rules the rest of us abide by don't apply to her. Every one knows that you don't park on zig zag lines outside a school. baylin

12:53pm Tue 3 Dec 13

jackiepipe says...

Whilst everyone is jumping up and down, the article quotes:

The independent adjudicator ruled in favour of Jo and said: “In each case these contraventions did not occur. These penalty charge notices were not validly issued. "

My understanding of that is that the contraventions did not occur and Jo Green was not illegally parked.....or am I missing something here????
Whilst everyone is jumping up and down, the article quotes: The independent adjudicator ruled in favour of Jo and said: “In each case these contraventions did not occur. These penalty charge notices were not validly issued. " My understanding of that is that the contraventions did not occur and Jo Green was not illegally parked.....or am I missing something here???? jackiepipe

12:58pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Dorset Logic says...

Ultimate cop out statements 2013.

"It is not our policy to comment on individual cases"

"Lessons have been learned"

"Terms and conditions apply"

"I was only obeying orders"
Ultimate cop out statements 2013. "It is not our policy to comment on individual cases" "Lessons have been learned" "Terms and conditions apply" "I was only obeying orders" Dorset Logic

1:04pm Tue 3 Dec 13

retry69 says...

jackiepipe wrote:
Whilst everyone is jumping up and down, the article quotes:

The independent adjudicator ruled in favour of Jo and said: “In each case these contraventions did not occur. These penalty charge notices were not validly issued. "

My understanding of that is that the contraventions did not occur and Jo Green was not illegally parked.....or am I missing something here????
Uh Yep
[quote][p][bold]jackiepipe[/bold] wrote: Whilst everyone is jumping up and down, the article quotes: The independent adjudicator ruled in favour of Jo and said: “In each case these contraventions did not occur. These penalty charge notices were not validly issued. " My understanding of that is that the contraventions did not occur and Jo Green was not illegally parked.....or am I missing something here????[/p][/quote]Uh Yep retry69

1:11pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Narwhal says...

MCAME1989 wrote:
What these camera cars do recognise is that there is a difference in parking for a long time and stopping for two minutes!
It does not matter if it is only for 20 seconds, that is long enough for a child to loose its life :(
[quote][p][bold]MCAME1989[/bold] wrote: What these camera cars do recognise is that there is a difference in parking for a long time and stopping for two minutes![/p][/quote]It does not matter if it is only for 20 seconds, that is long enough for a child to loose its life :( Narwhal

1:17pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Narwhal says...

poolequarter wrote:
What I also fail to understand is how does one person operate one of these camera cars. We are advised against operating mobile phones, Satnav`s, radios, CD players, cigarette lighters etc etc etc (All of which I fully agree with) ... BUT ... one person can operate a camera car??? Explanation please??? Must be able to multi task like these women who drive around on their mobile phone whilst at the same time doing their hair and make up!!!! There are loads of them!!!
The car needs a drive, Satnav controls the camera so it must know where all the definately no stopping dangers are! I believe that all the phoo's are seen by a human back at base..... No excuse for this selfish and dangerous parker!
[quote][p][bold]poolequarter[/bold] wrote: What I also fail to understand is how does one person operate one of these camera cars. We are advised against operating mobile phones, Satnav`s, radios, CD players, cigarette lighters etc etc etc (All of which I fully agree with) ... BUT ... one person can operate a camera car??? Explanation please??? Must be able to multi task like these women who drive around on their mobile phone whilst at the same time doing their hair and make up!!!! There are loads of them!!![/p][/quote]The car needs a drive, Satnav controls the camera so it must know where all the definately no stopping dangers are! I believe that all the phoo's are seen by a human back at base..... No excuse for this selfish and dangerous parker! Narwhal

1:20pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Jo Green says...

retry69 wrote:
I firmly believe that these individuals that see themselves above any laws and regulations should be compelled to wear a coloured flashing beacon on their heads when out to alert the normal public of their proximity and then they can be avoided at all costs.The only down side would be the extra long queue at the newsagent ;)
I'm sure the council would love a flashing beacon on the roof of their buildings - It is them that believe they are above the law!!!
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: I firmly believe that these individuals that see themselves above any laws and regulations should be compelled to wear a coloured flashing beacon on their heads when out to alert the normal public of their proximity and then they can be avoided at all costs.The only down side would be the extra long queue at the newsagent ;)[/p][/quote]I'm sure the council would love a flashing beacon on the roof of their buildings - It is them that believe they are above the law!!! Jo Green

1:21pm Tue 3 Dec 13

MCAME1989 says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
MCAME1989 wrote: What these camera cars do recognise is that there is a difference in parking for a long time and stopping for two minutes!
What does it matter the more people caught illegally parked on zig zags the better,as these people obviously do not have any consideration towards the safety of other parents or children
Where does it say that she was on zig zags?
U can't tell me u hav never stopped quickly on a double yellow line for urself or someone else to jump out or get in!
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MCAME1989[/bold] wrote: What these camera cars do recognise is that there is a difference in parking for a long time and stopping for two minutes![/p][/quote]What does it matter the more people caught illegally parked on zig zags the better,as these people obviously do not have any consideration towards the safety of other parents or children[/p][/quote]Where does it say that she was on zig zags? U can't tell me u hav never stopped quickly on a double yellow line for urself or someone else to jump out or get in! MCAME1989

1:32pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Wackerone says...

Perhaps the council might like to imform us on what grounds this a******e of a woman managed to challenge the enforcement tickets. Maybe they can sort out the legal side of this and stop this ignorant woman from cocking one finger at them and the rest of us.
Perhaps the council might like to imform us on what grounds this a******e of a woman managed to challenge the enforcement tickets. Maybe they can sort out the legal side of this and stop this ignorant woman from cocking one finger at them and the rest of us. Wackerone

1:47pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Dorset Logic says...

Narwhal wrote:
MCAME1989 wrote:
What these camera cars do recognise is that there is a difference in parking for a long time and stopping for two minutes!
It does not matter if it is only for 20 seconds, that is long enough for a child to loose its life :(
Lord preserve us
[quote][p][bold]Narwhal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MCAME1989[/bold] wrote: What these camera cars do recognise is that there is a difference in parking for a long time and stopping for two minutes![/p][/quote]It does not matter if it is only for 20 seconds, that is long enough for a child to loose its life :([/p][/quote]Lord preserve us Dorset Logic

1:49pm Tue 3 Dec 13

ReservoirFrogs says...

What a bunch of ignorant, self righteous people we have on here. I am glad to live in an area where it appears nobody ever breaks the law in any way, shape or form.
This lady had no reason to go to the echo, other than to warn other motorists who may have suffered the same fate.
Disagree all you like but thats the bottom line.
What a bunch of ignorant, self righteous people we have on here. I am glad to live in an area where it appears nobody ever breaks the law in any way, shape or form. This lady had no reason to go to the echo, other than to warn other motorists who may have suffered the same fate. Disagree all you like but thats the bottom line. ReservoirFrogs

1:50pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Dorset Logic says...

Dorset Logic wrote:
Narwhal wrote:
MCAME1989 wrote:
What these camera cars do recognise is that there is a difference in parking for a long time and stopping for two minutes!
It does not matter if it is only for 20 seconds, that is long enough for a child to loose its life :(
Lord preserve us
Pickling, Drying or Smoking will do
[quote][p][bold]Dorset Logic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Narwhal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MCAME1989[/bold] wrote: What these camera cars do recognise is that there is a difference in parking for a long time and stopping for two minutes![/p][/quote]It does not matter if it is only for 20 seconds, that is long enough for a child to loose its life :([/p][/quote]Lord preserve us[/p][/quote]Pickling, Drying or Smoking will do Dorset Logic

1:57pm Tue 3 Dec 13

sjdee74 says...

Well done Jo Green for winning your case! Its nice to know that someone has proved what con artists this council is! There are so many parking places around Poole which legally do not conform to legislation!
Well done Jo Green for winning your case! Its nice to know that someone has proved what con artists this council is! There are so many parking places around Poole which legally do not conform to legislation! sjdee74

2:05pm Tue 3 Dec 13

PokesdownMark says...

Narwhal wrote:
MCAME1989 wrote:
What these camera cars do recognise is that there is a difference in parking for a long time and stopping for two minutes!
It does not matter if it is only for 20 seconds, that is long enough for a child to loose its life :(
I hope the driver keeps his eyes out for children crossing the road. If the camera car hit a child that would be a terrible irony.

Thread annoys me greatly. It is not rocket science. The camera car is simply not able to distinguish between parking, stopping and waiting. These are three different things. There are laws for each one. Each has a combination of road markings and signage. The camera can only reliably detect a stopped vehicle where there should not be a stopped vehicle. Here are the councils own words:

QUOTE
Bournemouth Borough Council only use the camera car in location such as bus stops, pedestrian crossings, school entranceway zigzags and also where double yellow lines and kerb markings advising loading/unloading is prohibited.
ENDQUOTE

The tribunal would not have found in this ladies favour if the council had been operating the camera car in a proper and legal manner.

Also here are the councils OWN WORDS (complete with typos and poor grammer) with regard for stopping where there are both DOUBLE yellow lines AND kerb marking...

Double Yellow lines with kerb markings - Contravention code 02:
The double yellow lines are shown along the edge of the kerb indicating that no parking is available at any time. Theere are also kerb marking along the pavement that advise a loading ban is also in force for the location.
The yellow lines and kerb markings are applicable through to the boundary of the property taking in carriageway, pavement and grass verge areas.
A driver is permitted to stop for the purpose of allowing a passenger to board or alight the vehicle.
Disabled badge holders are not permitted to use their disabled badges in this location

This is from: http://www.bournemou
th.gov.uk/StreetsTra
nsport/Parking/Parki
ng-Restrictions-Cont
raventions/HowNotToB
eIssuedWithAPenaltyC
hargeNoticeOnStreet.
aspx

So - there - a driver IS PERMITTED TO STOP FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A PASSENGER TO BOARD OR ALIGHT THE VEHICLE.



I wish you could highlight text without resorting to caps :-)
[quote][p][bold]Narwhal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MCAME1989[/bold] wrote: What these camera cars do recognise is that there is a difference in parking for a long time and stopping for two minutes![/p][/quote]It does not matter if it is only for 20 seconds, that is long enough for a child to loose its life :([/p][/quote]I hope the driver keeps his eyes out for children crossing the road. If the camera car hit a child that would be a terrible irony. Thread annoys me greatly. It is not rocket science. The camera car is simply not able to distinguish between parking, stopping and waiting. These are three different things. There are laws for each one. Each has a combination of road markings and signage. The camera can only reliably detect a stopped vehicle where there should not be a stopped vehicle. Here are the councils own words: QUOTE Bournemouth Borough Council only use the camera car in location such as bus stops, pedestrian crossings, school entranceway zigzags and also where double yellow lines and kerb markings advising loading/unloading is prohibited. ENDQUOTE The tribunal would not have found in this ladies favour if the council had been operating the camera car in a proper and legal manner. Also here are the councils OWN WORDS (complete with typos and poor grammer) with regard for stopping where there are both DOUBLE yellow lines AND kerb marking... Double Yellow lines with kerb markings - Contravention code 02: The double yellow lines are shown along the edge of the kerb indicating that no parking is available at any time. Theere are also kerb marking along the pavement that advise a loading ban is also in force for the location. The yellow lines and kerb markings are applicable through to the boundary of the property taking in carriageway, pavement and grass verge areas. A driver is permitted to stop for the purpose of allowing a passenger to board or alight the vehicle. Disabled badge holders are not permitted to use their disabled badges in this location This is from: http://www.bournemou th.gov.uk/StreetsTra nsport/Parking/Parki ng-Restrictions-Cont raventions/HowNotToB eIssuedWithAPenaltyC hargeNoticeOnStreet. aspx So - there - a driver IS PERMITTED TO STOP FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A PASSENGER TO BOARD OR ALIGHT THE VEHICLE. I wish you could highlight text without resorting to caps :-) PokesdownMark

2:17pm Tue 3 Dec 13

retry69 says...

PokesdownMark wrote:
Narwhal wrote:
MCAME1989 wrote:
What these camera cars do recognise is that there is a difference in parking for a long time and stopping for two minutes!
It does not matter if it is only for 20 seconds, that is long enough for a child to loose its life :(
I hope the driver keeps his eyes out for children crossing the road. If the camera car hit a child that would be a terrible irony.

Thread annoys me greatly. It is not rocket science. The camera car is simply not able to distinguish between parking, stopping and waiting. These are three different things. There are laws for each one. Each has a combination of road markings and signage. The camera can only reliably detect a stopped vehicle where there should not be a stopped vehicle. Here are the councils own words:

QUOTE
Bournemouth Borough Council only use the camera car in location such as bus stops, pedestrian crossings, school entranceway zigzags and also where double yellow lines and kerb markings advising loading/unloading is prohibited.
ENDQUOTE

The tribunal would not have found in this ladies favour if the council had been operating the camera car in a proper and legal manner.

Also here are the councils OWN WORDS (complete with typos and poor grammer) with regard for stopping where there are both DOUBLE yellow lines AND kerb marking...

Double Yellow lines with kerb markings - Contravention code 02:
The double yellow lines are shown along the edge of the kerb indicating that no parking is available at any time. Theere are also kerb marking along the pavement that advise a loading ban is also in force for the location.
The yellow lines and kerb markings are applicable through to the boundary of the property taking in carriageway, pavement and grass verge areas.
A driver is permitted to stop for the purpose of allowing a passenger to board or alight the vehicle.
Disabled badge holders are not permitted to use their disabled badges in this location

This is from: http://www.bournemou

th.gov.uk/StreetsTra

nsport/Parking/Parki

ng-Restrictions-Cont

raventions/HowNotToB

eIssuedWithAPenaltyC

hargeNoticeOnStreet.

aspx

So - there - a driver IS PERMITTED TO STOP FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A PASSENGER TO BOARD OR ALIGHT THE VEHICLE.



I wish you could highlight text without resorting to caps :-)
I apologise for this but I was just settling down to read the comment and taking it seriously until "complete with typos and poor grammer" i could not go any further im so so sorry :)
[quote][p][bold]PokesdownMark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Narwhal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MCAME1989[/bold] wrote: What these camera cars do recognise is that there is a difference in parking for a long time and stopping for two minutes![/p][/quote]It does not matter if it is only for 20 seconds, that is long enough for a child to loose its life :([/p][/quote]I hope the driver keeps his eyes out for children crossing the road. If the camera car hit a child that would be a terrible irony. Thread annoys me greatly. It is not rocket science. The camera car is simply not able to distinguish between parking, stopping and waiting. These are three different things. There are laws for each one. Each has a combination of road markings and signage. The camera can only reliably detect a stopped vehicle where there should not be a stopped vehicle. Here are the councils own words: QUOTE Bournemouth Borough Council only use the camera car in location such as bus stops, pedestrian crossings, school entranceway zigzags and also where double yellow lines and kerb markings advising loading/unloading is prohibited. ENDQUOTE The tribunal would not have found in this ladies favour if the council had been operating the camera car in a proper and legal manner. Also here are the councils OWN WORDS (complete with typos and poor grammer) with regard for stopping where there are both DOUBLE yellow lines AND kerb marking... Double Yellow lines with kerb markings - Contravention code 02: The double yellow lines are shown along the edge of the kerb indicating that no parking is available at any time. Theere are also kerb marking along the pavement that advise a loading ban is also in force for the location. The yellow lines and kerb markings are applicable through to the boundary of the property taking in carriageway, pavement and grass verge areas. A driver is permitted to stop for the purpose of allowing a passenger to board or alight the vehicle. Disabled badge holders are not permitted to use their disabled badges in this location This is from: http://www.bournemou th.gov.uk/StreetsTra nsport/Parking/Parki ng-Restrictions-Cont raventions/HowNotToB eIssuedWithAPenaltyC hargeNoticeOnStreet. aspx So - there - a driver IS PERMITTED TO STOP FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A PASSENGER TO BOARD OR ALIGHT THE VEHICLE. I wish you could highlight text without resorting to caps :-)[/p][/quote]I apologise for this but I was just settling down to read the comment and taking it seriously until "complete with typos and poor grammer" i could not go any further im so so sorry :) retry69

2:18pm Tue 3 Dec 13

dorsetspeed says...

Very well put PokesdownMark. You would have thought the council would be more careful having already ticketed a car that was being driven at the time with this grubby, greedy little scam. Just yet another mess up from Poole Council, who would not know professional process if it stared them in the face and know even less about competent safety work
Very well put PokesdownMark. You would have thought the council would be more careful having already ticketed a car that was being driven at the time with this grubby, greedy little scam. Just yet another mess up from Poole Council, who would not know professional process if it stared them in the face and know even less about competent safety work dorsetspeed

2:32pm Tue 3 Dec 13

BarrHumbug says...

PokesdownMark wrote:
Narwhal wrote:
MCAME1989 wrote:
What these camera cars do recognise is that there is a difference in parking for a long time and stopping for two minutes!
It does not matter if it is only for 20 seconds, that is long enough for a child to loose its life :(
I hope the driver keeps his eyes out for children crossing the road. If the camera car hit a child that would be a terrible irony.

Thread annoys me greatly. It is not rocket science. The camera car is simply not able to distinguish between parking, stopping and waiting. These are three different things. There are laws for each one. Each has a combination of road markings and signage. The camera can only reliably detect a stopped vehicle where there should not be a stopped vehicle. Here are the councils own words:

QUOTE
Bournemouth Borough Council only use the camera car in location such as bus stops, pedestrian crossings, school entranceway zigzags and also where double yellow lines and kerb markings advising loading/unloading is prohibited.
ENDQUOTE

The tribunal would not have found in this ladies favour if the council had been operating the camera car in a proper and legal manner.

Also here are the councils OWN WORDS (complete with typos and poor grammer) with regard for stopping where there are both DOUBLE yellow lines AND kerb marking...

Double Yellow lines with kerb markings - Contravention code 02:
The double yellow lines are shown along the edge of the kerb indicating that no parking is available at any time. Theere are also kerb marking along the pavement that advise a loading ban is also in force for the location.
The yellow lines and kerb markings are applicable through to the boundary of the property taking in carriageway, pavement and grass verge areas.
A driver is permitted to stop for the purpose of allowing a passenger to board or alight the vehicle.
Disabled badge holders are not permitted to use their disabled badges in this location

This is from: http://www.bournemou

th.gov.uk/StreetsTra

nsport/Parking/Parki

ng-Restrictions-Cont

raventions/HowNotToB

eIssuedWithAPenaltyC

hargeNoticeOnStreet.

aspx

So - there - a driver IS PERMITTED TO STOP FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A PASSENGER TO BOARD OR ALIGHT THE VEHICLE.



I wish you could highlight text without resorting to caps :-)
The guideline of the law may allow a passenger/s to board or alight a vehicle but it certainly doesn't mean turning up at 3pm and waiting till 3:15, using the time standing around chatting to the other mums about who's having an affair with who or eyeing up someone else's husband while their waiting for their kids to come out of the school?
[quote][p][bold]PokesdownMark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Narwhal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MCAME1989[/bold] wrote: What these camera cars do recognise is that there is a difference in parking for a long time and stopping for two minutes![/p][/quote]It does not matter if it is only for 20 seconds, that is long enough for a child to loose its life :([/p][/quote]I hope the driver keeps his eyes out for children crossing the road. If the camera car hit a child that would be a terrible irony. Thread annoys me greatly. It is not rocket science. The camera car is simply not able to distinguish between parking, stopping and waiting. These are three different things. There are laws for each one. Each has a combination of road markings and signage. The camera can only reliably detect a stopped vehicle where there should not be a stopped vehicle. Here are the councils own words: QUOTE Bournemouth Borough Council only use the camera car in location such as bus stops, pedestrian crossings, school entranceway zigzags and also where double yellow lines and kerb markings advising loading/unloading is prohibited. ENDQUOTE The tribunal would not have found in this ladies favour if the council had been operating the camera car in a proper and legal manner. Also here are the councils OWN WORDS (complete with typos and poor grammer) with regard for stopping where there are both DOUBLE yellow lines AND kerb marking... Double Yellow lines with kerb markings - Contravention code 02: The double yellow lines are shown along the edge of the kerb indicating that no parking is available at any time. Theere are also kerb marking along the pavement that advise a loading ban is also in force for the location. The yellow lines and kerb markings are applicable through to the boundary of the property taking in carriageway, pavement and grass verge areas. A driver is permitted to stop for the purpose of allowing a passenger to board or alight the vehicle. Disabled badge holders are not permitted to use their disabled badges in this location This is from: http://www.bournemou th.gov.uk/StreetsTra nsport/Parking/Parki ng-Restrictions-Cont raventions/HowNotToB eIssuedWithAPenaltyC hargeNoticeOnStreet. aspx So - there - a driver IS PERMITTED TO STOP FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A PASSENGER TO BOARD OR ALIGHT THE VEHICLE. I wish you could highlight text without resorting to caps :-)[/p][/quote]The guideline of the law may allow a passenger/s to board or alight a vehicle but it certainly doesn't mean turning up at 3pm and waiting till 3:15, using the time standing around chatting to the other mums about who's having an affair with who or eyeing up someone else's husband while their waiting for their kids to come out of the school? BarrHumbug

2:42pm Tue 3 Dec 13

randson112 says...

There are two separate issues here, was she right to appeal an illegal act definitely, good for her, well done < personally have always called Poole council the local statzi, the second? was she parked illegally and thoughtlessly, possibly she was, but the problem should not really be hers, it should be the schools for letting 300 plus children out all at the same time, a few minutes stagger between classes would make a big improvement to the frienzy that takes place
There are two separate issues here, was she right to appeal an illegal act definitely, good for her, well done < personally have always called Poole council the local statzi, the second? was she parked illegally and thoughtlessly, possibly she was, but the problem should not really be hers, it should be the schools for letting 300 plus children out all at the same time, a few minutes stagger between classes would make a big improvement to the frienzy that takes place randson112

2:46pm Tue 3 Dec 13

retry69 says...

Come on PokesdownMark tell us that was intentional please !!!
Come on PokesdownMark tell us that was intentional please !!! retry69

2:47pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Franks Tank says...

Wow, so many comments.
She didn't happen to cycle on the pavement with no lights did she?
Wow, so many comments. She didn't happen to cycle on the pavement with no lights did she? Franks Tank

2:51pm Tue 3 Dec 13

PokesdownMark says...

retry69 wrote:
Come on PokesdownMark tell us that was intentional please !!!
Grammer vs grammar? Yes totally :-) If something else, not so much.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Come on PokesdownMark tell us that was intentional please !!![/p][/quote]Grammer vs grammar? Yes totally :-) If something else, not so much. PokesdownMark

2:53pm Tue 3 Dec 13

JustForPoole says...

Jo Green wrote:
retry69 wrote:
I firmly believe that these individuals that see themselves above any laws and regulations should be compelled to wear a coloured flashing beacon on their heads when out to alert the normal public of their proximity and then they can be avoided at all costs.The only down side would be the extra long queue at the newsagent ;)
I'm sure the council would love a flashing beacon on the roof of their buildings - It is them that believe they are above the law!!!
Definitely .... flashing beacon to warn us all ... Ignorant Driver Approaching !!! Where the hell are we going to find that many flashing beacons ???? They could have funny purple ones .. to match her hair ???
[quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: I firmly believe that these individuals that see themselves above any laws and regulations should be compelled to wear a coloured flashing beacon on their heads when out to alert the normal public of their proximity and then they can be avoided at all costs.The only down side would be the extra long queue at the newsagent ;)[/p][/quote]I'm sure the council would love a flashing beacon on the roof of their buildings - It is them that believe they are above the law!!![/p][/quote]Definitely .... flashing beacon to warn us all ... Ignorant Driver Approaching !!! Where the hell are we going to find that many flashing beacons ???? They could have funny purple ones .. to match her hair ??? JustForPoole

3:33pm Tue 3 Dec 13

retry69 says...

PokesdownMark wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Come on PokesdownMark tell us that was intentional please !!!
Grammer vs grammar? Yes totally :-) If something else, not so much.
Fantastic ! LIAR !! I must be the worse or is it worst for grammar,grammer or gramma on here but ive seen it happen so many times someone takes the **** out of someone else (not you of course) and then goes and makes a worse mistake, good stuff.take care :)
[quote][p][bold]PokesdownMark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Come on PokesdownMark tell us that was intentional please !!![/p][/quote]Grammer vs grammar? Yes totally :-) If something else, not so much.[/p][/quote]Fantastic ! LIAR !! I must be the worse or is it worst for grammar,grammer or gramma on here but ive seen it happen so many times someone takes the **** out of someone else (not you of course) and then goes and makes a worse mistake, good stuff.take care :) retry69

3:44pm Tue 3 Dec 13

alasdair1967 says...

Jo Green wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote:
Jo Green wrote:
manyogie wrote:
On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then?
Score Jo !
Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`
stopped on single yellow line where absolutely no danger posed to anyone, not zigzag
So your own admission you where illegally parked ,parking restrictions apply from 0800 until 1800
incorrect on both counts!
Sorry it seems was incorrect on one count the actual severity of the actual parking restrictions around baden Powell school ,it is such a shame you where not actually caught by a Warden as you would have not had a leg to stand on ,sadly you have managed to worm your way out of paying these justified fines
[quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]manyogie[/bold] wrote: On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then? Score Jo ! Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`[/p][/quote]stopped on single yellow line where absolutely no danger posed to anyone, not zigzag[/p][/quote]So your own admission you where illegally parked ,parking restrictions apply from 0800 until 1800[/p][/quote]incorrect on both counts![/p][/quote]Sorry it seems was incorrect on one count the actual severity of the actual parking restrictions around baden Powell school ,it is such a shame you where not actually caught by a Warden as you would have not had a leg to stand on ,sadly you have managed to worm your way out of paying these justified fines alasdair1967

3:54pm Tue 3 Dec 13

retry69 says...

JustForPoole wrote:
Jo Green wrote:
retry69 wrote:
I firmly believe that these individuals that see themselves above any laws and regulations should be compelled to wear a coloured flashing beacon on their heads when out to alert the normal public of their proximity and then they can be avoided at all costs.The only down side would be the extra long queue at the newsagent ;)
I'm sure the council would love a flashing beacon on the roof of their buildings - It is them that believe they are above the law!!!
Definitely .... flashing beacon to warn us all ... Ignorant Driver Approaching !!! Where the hell are we going to find that many flashing beacons ???? They could have funny purple ones .. to match her hair ???
Now listen no need to get silly,although what about compulsory helmets with flashing LED lights green for competent drivers,amber for those in need of a re-test and red for total idiot drivers,would there be enough red lights available though ? :)
[quote][p][bold]JustForPoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: I firmly believe that these individuals that see themselves above any laws and regulations should be compelled to wear a coloured flashing beacon on their heads when out to alert the normal public of their proximity and then they can be avoided at all costs.The only down side would be the extra long queue at the newsagent ;)[/p][/quote]I'm sure the council would love a flashing beacon on the roof of their buildings - It is them that believe they are above the law!!![/p][/quote]Definitely .... flashing beacon to warn us all ... Ignorant Driver Approaching !!! Where the hell are we going to find that many flashing beacons ???? They could have funny purple ones .. to match her hair ???[/p][/quote]Now listen no need to get silly,although what about compulsory helmets with flashing LED lights green for competent drivers,amber for those in need of a re-test and red for total idiot drivers,would there be enough red lights available though ? :) retry69

3:56pm Tue 3 Dec 13

nickynoodah says...

You need triple yellow lines over there in Bournemouth
to stop the georges and no baths loitering in certain areas you know
could catch some thing you did not bargain for you know.
You need triple yellow lines over there in Bournemouth to stop the georges and no baths loitering in certain areas you know could catch some thing you did not bargain for you know. nickynoodah

3:56pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Frogmarch2 says...

I know someone who took Bournemouth Council to task on their mobile camera car and got all his parking tickets that had been issued cancelled and an admission that the camera car is not working within the law. If you received a mobile camera car ticket go straight to appeal, the council do not have a leg to stand on.
I know someone who took Bournemouth Council to task on their mobile camera car and got all his parking tickets that had been issued cancelled and an admission that the camera car is not working within the law. If you received a mobile camera car ticket go straight to appeal, the council do not have a leg to stand on. Frogmarch2

4:12pm Tue 3 Dec 13

retry69 says...

Frogmarch2 wrote:
I know someone who took Bournemouth Council to task on their mobile camera car and got all his parking tickets that had been issued cancelled and an admission that the camera car is not working within the law. If you received a mobile camera car ticket go straight to appeal, the council do not have a leg to stand on.
Not even a frogs leg? :)
[quote][p][bold]Frogmarch2[/bold] wrote: I know someone who took Bournemouth Council to task on their mobile camera car and got all his parking tickets that had been issued cancelled and an admission that the camera car is not working within the law. If you received a mobile camera car ticket go straight to appeal, the council do not have a leg to stand on.[/p][/quote]Not even a frogs leg? :) retry69

4:16pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Hessenford says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
Jo Green wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote:
Jo Green wrote:
manyogie wrote:
On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then?
Score Jo !
Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`
stopped on single yellow line where absolutely no danger posed to anyone, not zigzag
So your own admission you where illegally parked ,parking restrictions apply from 0800 until 1800
incorrect on both counts!
Sorry it seems was incorrect on one count the actual severity of the actual parking restrictions around baden Powell school ,it is such a shame you where not actually caught by a Warden as you would have not had a leg to stand on ,sadly you have managed to worm your way out of paying these justified fines
No worming involved, its called appealing against the tickets, obviously there was a problem with their issue and she won, whats wrong with that.
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]manyogie[/bold] wrote: On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then? Score Jo ! Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`[/p][/quote]stopped on single yellow line where absolutely no danger posed to anyone, not zigzag[/p][/quote]So your own admission you where illegally parked ,parking restrictions apply from 0800 until 1800[/p][/quote]incorrect on both counts![/p][/quote]Sorry it seems was incorrect on one count the actual severity of the actual parking restrictions around baden Powell school ,it is such a shame you where not actually caught by a Warden as you would have not had a leg to stand on ,sadly you have managed to worm your way out of paying these justified fines[/p][/quote]No worming involved, its called appealing against the tickets, obviously there was a problem with their issue and she won, whats wrong with that. Hessenford

4:23pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Hessenford says...

BarrHumbug wrote:
PokesdownMark wrote:
Narwhal wrote:
MCAME1989 wrote:
What these camera cars do recognise is that there is a difference in parking for a long time and stopping for two minutes!
It does not matter if it is only for 20 seconds, that is long enough for a child to loose its life :(
I hope the driver keeps his eyes out for children crossing the road. If the camera car hit a child that would be a terrible irony.

Thread annoys me greatly. It is not rocket science. The camera car is simply not able to distinguish between parking, stopping and waiting. These are three different things. There are laws for each one. Each has a combination of road markings and signage. The camera can only reliably detect a stopped vehicle where there should not be a stopped vehicle. Here are the councils own words:

QUOTE
Bournemouth Borough Council only use the camera car in location such as bus stops, pedestrian crossings, school entranceway zigzags and also where double yellow lines and kerb markings advising loading/unloading is prohibited.
ENDQUOTE

The tribunal would not have found in this ladies favour if the council had been operating the camera car in a proper and legal manner.

Also here are the councils OWN WORDS (complete with typos and poor grammer) with regard for stopping where there are both DOUBLE yellow lines AND kerb marking...

Double Yellow lines with kerb markings - Contravention code 02:
The double yellow lines are shown along the edge of the kerb indicating that no parking is available at any time. Theere are also kerb marking along the pavement that advise a loading ban is also in force for the location.
The yellow lines and kerb markings are applicable through to the boundary of the property taking in carriageway, pavement and grass verge areas.
A driver is permitted to stop for the purpose of allowing a passenger to board or alight the vehicle.
Disabled badge holders are not permitted to use their disabled badges in this location

This is from: http://www.bournemou


th.gov.uk/StreetsTra


nsport/Parking/Parki


ng-Restrictions-Cont


raventions/HowNotToB


eIssuedWithAPenaltyC


hargeNoticeOnStreet.


aspx

So - there - a driver IS PERMITTED TO STOP FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A PASSENGER TO BOARD OR ALIGHT THE VEHICLE.



I wish you could highlight text without resorting to caps :-)
The guideline of the law may allow a passenger/s to board or alight a vehicle but it certainly doesn't mean turning up at 3pm and waiting till 3:15, using the time standing around chatting to the other mums about who's having an affair with who or eyeing up someone else's husband while their waiting for their kids to come out of the school?
Who is having an affair some one else's husband, I want to know.
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PokesdownMark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Narwhal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MCAME1989[/bold] wrote: What these camera cars do recognise is that there is a difference in parking for a long time and stopping for two minutes![/p][/quote]It does not matter if it is only for 20 seconds, that is long enough for a child to loose its life :([/p][/quote]I hope the driver keeps his eyes out for children crossing the road. If the camera car hit a child that would be a terrible irony. Thread annoys me greatly. It is not rocket science. The camera car is simply not able to distinguish between parking, stopping and waiting. These are three different things. There are laws for each one. Each has a combination of road markings and signage. The camera can only reliably detect a stopped vehicle where there should not be a stopped vehicle. Here are the councils own words: QUOTE Bournemouth Borough Council only use the camera car in location such as bus stops, pedestrian crossings, school entranceway zigzags and also where double yellow lines and kerb markings advising loading/unloading is prohibited. ENDQUOTE The tribunal would not have found in this ladies favour if the council had been operating the camera car in a proper and legal manner. Also here are the councils OWN WORDS (complete with typos and poor grammer) with regard for stopping where there are both DOUBLE yellow lines AND kerb marking... Double Yellow lines with kerb markings - Contravention code 02: The double yellow lines are shown along the edge of the kerb indicating that no parking is available at any time. Theere are also kerb marking along the pavement that advise a loading ban is also in force for the location. The yellow lines and kerb markings are applicable through to the boundary of the property taking in carriageway, pavement and grass verge areas. A driver is permitted to stop for the purpose of allowing a passenger to board or alight the vehicle. Disabled badge holders are not permitted to use their disabled badges in this location This is from: http://www.bournemou th.gov.uk/StreetsTra nsport/Parking/Parki ng-Restrictions-Cont raventions/HowNotToB eIssuedWithAPenaltyC hargeNoticeOnStreet. aspx So - there - a driver IS PERMITTED TO STOP FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A PASSENGER TO BOARD OR ALIGHT THE VEHICLE. I wish you could highlight text without resorting to caps :-)[/p][/quote]The guideline of the law may allow a passenger/s to board or alight a vehicle but it certainly doesn't mean turning up at 3pm and waiting till 3:15, using the time standing around chatting to the other mums about who's having an affair with who or eyeing up someone else's husband while their waiting for their kids to come out of the school?[/p][/quote]Who is having an affair some one else's husband, I want to know. Hessenford

4:32pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Rustyfootballer says...

I paid my mobile camera car ticket. I stopped on a double yellow for a minute to let my wife out to go to a shop. Laws should alway be interpreted as spirit not letter and there should be a little bit of flexibility or the country would be very unpleasant with everyone acting like a school tell tale. If there had been a warden he/she would have asked me to move and that would have been fine. Too many on this site are so holy I'm amazed they ever bend any rules or do anything wrong.
I paid my mobile camera car ticket. I stopped on a double yellow for a minute to let my wife out to go to a shop. Laws should alway be interpreted as spirit not letter and there should be a little bit of flexibility or the country would be very unpleasant with everyone acting like a school tell tale. If there had been a warden he/she would have asked me to move and that would have been fine. Too many on this site are so holy I'm amazed they ever bend any rules or do anything wrong. Rustyfootballer

4:49pm Tue 3 Dec 13

alasdair1967 says...

Hessenford wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote:
Jo Green wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote:
Jo Green wrote:
manyogie wrote:
On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then?
Score Jo !
Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`
stopped on single yellow line where absolutely no danger posed to anyone, not zigzag
So your own admission you where illegally parked ,parking restrictions apply from 0800 until 1800
incorrect on both counts!
Sorry it seems was incorrect on one count the actual severity of the actual parking restrictions around baden Powell school ,it is such a shame you where not actually caught by a Warden as you would have not had a leg to stand on ,sadly you have managed to worm your way out of paying these justified fines
No worming involved, its called appealing against the tickets, obviously there was a problem with their issue and she won, whats wrong with that.
I'm all for the councils plugging this loophole hurry up and do it get signage up and catch these people who think they have a god given right to park whoever regardless of any restrictions during the school run ,it obviously works seeing as this woman was caught three times in five days the will soon realise the error of there esys when fines drop through there letter boxes on a regular basis !
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]manyogie[/bold] wrote: On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then? Score Jo ! Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`[/p][/quote]stopped on single yellow line where absolutely no danger posed to anyone, not zigzag[/p][/quote]So your own admission you where illegally parked ,parking restrictions apply from 0800 until 1800[/p][/quote]incorrect on both counts![/p][/quote]Sorry it seems was incorrect on one count the actual severity of the actual parking restrictions around baden Powell school ,it is such a shame you where not actually caught by a Warden as you would have not had a leg to stand on ,sadly you have managed to worm your way out of paying these justified fines[/p][/quote]No worming involved, its called appealing against the tickets, obviously there was a problem with their issue and she won, whats wrong with that.[/p][/quote]I'm all for the councils plugging this loophole hurry up and do it get signage up and catch these people who think they have a god given right to park whoever regardless of any restrictions during the school run ,it obviously works seeing as this woman was caught three times in five days the will soon realise the error of there esys when fines drop through there letter boxes on a regular basis ! alasdair1967

5:14pm Tue 3 Dec 13

ol'bag lady says...

utciad wrote:
we-shall-see wrote:
While I understand the council may have acted without proper authority in this case - does that woman not have any care about where she parks?

I sincerely hope a child is not injured as a result of her parking where the hell she pleases ……… Silly, selfish person - make your lazy child walk a few extra yards and park in the right place!!!
Trouble here is now 'If she can get away with it, we all can' so there will be ignorant and stupid self-centred parents doing as they like wherever they like now.
Obviously this woman has no conscience whatsoever. Hope someone does the same to her one day, and puts her dear little one in danger....then let's hear her scream!!

But of course, ALL laws apply to everyone else, BUT never to us, don't they...

This has just shown her up for what she really is, ignorant and selfish...
Why blame the child?

make your lazy child walk a few extra yards and park in the right place

It is not the fault of the child - I imagine they would prefer to walk - it is the lazy car drivers who are to blame. Let us see if she continues with her selfish behaviour.
[quote][p][bold]utciad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we-shall-see[/bold] wrote: While I understand the council may have acted without proper authority in this case - does that woman not have any care about where she parks? I sincerely hope a child is not injured as a result of her parking where the hell she pleases ……… Silly, selfish person - make your lazy child walk a few extra yards and park in the right place!!![/p][/quote]Trouble here is now 'If she can get away with it, we all can' so there will be ignorant and stupid self-centred parents doing as they like wherever they like now. Obviously this woman has no conscience whatsoever. Hope someone does the same to her one day, and puts her dear little one in danger....then let's hear her scream!! But of course, ALL laws apply to everyone else, BUT never to us, don't they... This has just shown her up for what she really is, ignorant and selfish...[/p][/quote]Why blame the child? make your lazy child walk a few extra yards and park in the right place It is not the fault of the child - I imagine they would prefer to walk - it is the lazy car drivers who are to blame. Let us see if she continues with her selfish behaviour. ol'bag lady

5:34pm Tue 3 Dec 13

pete woodley says...

Bright red car,purple hair,she should be easy to spot.
Bright red car,purple hair,she should be easy to spot. pete woodley

5:39pm Tue 3 Dec 13

davecook says...

Chris the plumber wrote:
When Jo Green parks on a zig zag and a child is injured I am sure she will look at her victory with pride !
And if it is her own child, expect her to be in the Echo with a classic crossed arms photograph looking as if the whole world is to blame except her...........
[quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: When Jo Green parks on a zig zag and a child is injured I am sure she will look at her victory with pride ![/p][/quote]And if it is her own child, expect her to be in the Echo with a classic crossed arms photograph looking as if the whole world is to blame except her........... davecook

5:55pm Tue 3 Dec 13

nickynoodah says...

Looking beautiful and turning heads is a common natural desire for women
Jo is a stunner
please echo
lets have more like Jo
thankyou
Looking beautiful and turning heads is a common natural desire for women Jo is a stunner please echo lets have more like Jo thankyou nickynoodah

6:04pm Tue 3 Dec 13

pete woodley says...

nickynoodah wrote:
Looking beautiful and turning heads is a common natural desire for women
Jo is a stunner
please echo
lets have more like Jo
thankyou
Try "specsavers"
[quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: Looking beautiful and turning heads is a common natural desire for women Jo is a stunner please echo lets have more like Jo thankyou[/p][/quote]Try "specsavers" pete woodley

7:14pm Tue 3 Dec 13

mikeymagic says...

Don't park illegally you tool.
Don't park illegally you tool. mikeymagic

8:45pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Jo Green says...

The first adjudicator decision was in May 2013
The second, and final, decision was in September 2013
As far as I can tell, the Council have made no changes to the area, or their procedures, since the Adjudicators very clear rulings.
The Mobile Camera Car is still operating in this area, and issuing tickets, knowing full well that they are not enforceable!
If their objective is to protect the children from danger, they can clearly see every day that their current method is not working, yet they make no changes!
They just keep sending the car around in order to generate more revenue.
The only difference now, is that they are obtaining personal data from the DVLA, on the grounds that they claim to have evidence of a parking contravention. They are fully aware that they have no such evidence, so, in my view that is a serious breach of the Data Protection Act!

These tickets drop through your letter box around 2 weeks after the so called evidence has been gathered. So the Council obviously do not think informing the driver of their potential error is urgent at all.
I fail to see how they believe acting in this way is having any effect on the safety of the children!
Nor is the fact that the restricted time zone has been set as between the hours of 2pm and 4pm – school kicks out at 3.20pm, and after school clubs come out between 4pm and 5pm. What about the safety of the children between 4pm and 5pm? Which children are they protecting from 2pm to 3pm?

I was not parked on a zig zag, or on double yellow lines.
The camera car recorded me as being on a single yellow line on Windsor Road (although at the time I was actually Kimberley Road!!!). A yellow line that was painted on the road before the entire end of Windsor road was effectively blocked off to all traffic by constructing an island in the road, which provides a huge space for children to exit the school safely.
There are in fact NO zig zag lines in the area at all!

I agree whole heartedly that the safety of children is paramount, and if these restrictions are truly there for that purpose, the Council should be actively trying to enforce the restrictions by having a pedestrian officer on site.

It’s interesting that so many people are willing to make abusive comments about me, accuse me of all sorts of parking contraventions I have never committed, and those I have been cleared of committing!
Why is it that people see fit to accuse me of breaking the law, when the adjudicators rulings have cleared me of any wrong doing, and stated that the council are in fact the ones in the wrong?!?!

It would seem the real issues with this case have been missed by many people – maybe they just read the headline? Or looked at the colour of my hair and made assumptions about me? I don’t know really, but I will be making many of the case documents available to anyone who wants to see them. I will let you all know how, and when, as soon as I’ve sorted a suitable platform for doing so.
The first adjudicator decision was in May 2013 The second, and final, decision was in September 2013 As far as I can tell, the Council have made no changes to the area, or their procedures, since the Adjudicators very clear rulings. The Mobile Camera Car is still operating in this area, and issuing tickets, knowing full well that they are not enforceable! If their objective is to protect the children from danger, they can clearly see every day that their current method is not working, yet they make no changes! They just keep sending the car around in order to generate more revenue. The only difference now, is that they are obtaining personal data from the DVLA, on the grounds that they claim to have evidence of a parking contravention. They are fully aware that they have no such evidence, so, in my view that is a serious breach of the Data Protection Act! These tickets drop through your letter box around 2 weeks after the so called evidence has been gathered. So the Council obviously do not think informing the driver of their potential error is urgent at all. I fail to see how they believe acting in this way is having any effect on the safety of the children! Nor is the fact that the restricted time zone has been set as between the hours of 2pm and 4pm – school kicks out at 3.20pm, and after school clubs come out between 4pm and 5pm. What about the safety of the children between 4pm and 5pm? Which children are they protecting from 2pm to 3pm? I was not parked on a zig zag, or on double yellow lines. The camera car recorded me as being on a single yellow line on Windsor Road (although at the time I was actually Kimberley Road!!!). A yellow line that was painted on the road before the entire end of Windsor road was effectively blocked off to all traffic by constructing an island in the road, which provides a huge space for children to exit the school safely. There are in fact NO zig zag lines in the area at all! I agree whole heartedly that the safety of children is paramount, and if these restrictions are truly there for that purpose, the Council should be actively trying to enforce the restrictions by having a pedestrian officer on site. It’s interesting that so many people are willing to make abusive comments about me, accuse me of all sorts of parking contraventions I have never committed, and those I have been cleared of committing! Why is it that people see fit to accuse me of breaking the law, when the adjudicators rulings have cleared me of any wrong doing, and stated that the council are in fact the ones in the wrong?!?! It would seem the real issues with this case have been missed by many people – maybe they just read the headline? Or looked at the colour of my hair and made assumptions about me? I don’t know really, but I will be making many of the case documents available to anyone who wants to see them. I will let you all know how, and when, as soon as I’ve sorted a suitable platform for doing so. Jo Green

9:19pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Jo Green says...

Hessenford wrote:
If this stupid woman did park on the zig zags then she deserves to be fined, on the other hand if Poole council do not follow legal guidelines they deserve to lose the case.
The data protection act states that, You must let people know that they are in an area where CCTV surveillance is being carried out, obviously the council think they are above the data protection act.
As for following government guidelines Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles has said he wants to curb ‘overzealous’ local authorities which use the camera cars to maximise their income from parking fines, that's one obvious guideline that no council wants to follow it seems.
Although this woman did apparently did something stupid, well done to her for taking on the council and this revenue raising camera car and winning, red faced council all round then.
Surely this should have been worded........
"If this woman did park on the zig zags then she deserves to be fined, but, if Poole Council are stupid enough to not follow legal guidelines they deserve to lose the case!"
After all, there are no zig zags in the area, I was not accused of parking on zig zags, and I was cleared of all accusations by the Adjudicators.
The same Adjudicators that found the Council to be acting against all rules and guidelines for the use of mobile camera cars!
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: If this stupid woman did park on the zig zags then she deserves to be fined, on the other hand if Poole council do not follow legal guidelines they deserve to lose the case. The data protection act states that, You must let people know that they are in an area where CCTV surveillance is being carried out, obviously the council think they are above the data protection act. As for following government guidelines Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles has said he wants to curb ‘overzealous’ local authorities which use the camera cars to maximise their income from parking fines, that's one obvious guideline that no council wants to follow it seems. Although this woman did apparently did something stupid, well done to her for taking on the council and this revenue raising camera car and winning, red faced council all round then.[/p][/quote]Surely this should have been worded........ "If this woman did park on the zig zags then she deserves to be fined, but, if Poole Council are stupid enough to not follow legal guidelines they deserve to lose the case!" After all, there are no zig zags in the area, I was not accused of parking on zig zags, and I was cleared of all accusations by the Adjudicators. The same Adjudicators that found the Council to be acting against all rules and guidelines for the use of mobile camera cars! Jo Green

9:26pm Tue 3 Dec 13

jackiepipe says...

Jo Green wrote:
The first adjudicator decision was in May 2013
The second, and final, decision was in September 2013
As far as I can tell, the Council have made no changes to the area, or their procedures, since the Adjudicators very clear rulings.
The Mobile Camera Car is still operating in this area, and issuing tickets, knowing full well that they are not enforceable!
If their objective is to protect the children from danger, they can clearly see every day that their current method is not working, yet they make no changes!
They just keep sending the car around in order to generate more revenue.
The only difference now, is that they are obtaining personal data from the DVLA, on the grounds that they claim to have evidence of a parking contravention. They are fully aware that they have no such evidence, so, in my view that is a serious breach of the Data Protection Act!

These tickets drop through your letter box around 2 weeks after the so called evidence has been gathered. So the Council obviously do not think informing the driver of their potential error is urgent at all.
I fail to see how they believe acting in this way is having any effect on the safety of the children!
Nor is the fact that the restricted time zone has been set as between the hours of 2pm and 4pm – school kicks out at 3.20pm, and after school clubs come out between 4pm and 5pm. What about the safety of the children between 4pm and 5pm? Which children are they protecting from 2pm to 3pm?

I was not parked on a zig zag, or on double yellow lines.
The camera car recorded me as being on a single yellow line on Windsor Road (although at the time I was actually Kimberley Road!!!). A yellow line that was painted on the road before the entire end of Windsor road was effectively blocked off to all traffic by constructing an island in the road, which provides a huge space for children to exit the school safely.
There are in fact NO zig zag lines in the area at all!

I agree whole heartedly that the safety of children is paramount, and if these restrictions are truly there for that purpose, the Council should be actively trying to enforce the restrictions by having a pedestrian officer on site.

It’s interesting that so many people are willing to make abusive comments about me, accuse me of all sorts of parking contraventions I have never committed, and those I have been cleared of committing!
Why is it that people see fit to accuse me of breaking the law, when the adjudicators rulings have cleared me of any wrong doing, and stated that the council are in fact the ones in the wrong?!?!

It would seem the real issues with this case have been missed by many people – maybe they just read the headline? Or looked at the colour of my hair and made assumptions about me? I don’t know really, but I will be making many of the case documents available to anyone who wants to see them. I will let you all know how, and when, as soon as I’ve sorted a suitable platform for doing so.
Well done Jo in your very comprehensive and balanced response. I too was shocked at the abuse and unkindness that has been written in this forum today about you. Completely unnecessary in my opinion and I admire you for having the guts to stand your ground and take on the council.
[quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: The first adjudicator decision was in May 2013 The second, and final, decision was in September 2013 As far as I can tell, the Council have made no changes to the area, or their procedures, since the Adjudicators very clear rulings. The Mobile Camera Car is still operating in this area, and issuing tickets, knowing full well that they are not enforceable! If their objective is to protect the children from danger, they can clearly see every day that their current method is not working, yet they make no changes! They just keep sending the car around in order to generate more revenue. The only difference now, is that they are obtaining personal data from the DVLA, on the grounds that they claim to have evidence of a parking contravention. They are fully aware that they have no such evidence, so, in my view that is a serious breach of the Data Protection Act! These tickets drop through your letter box around 2 weeks after the so called evidence has been gathered. So the Council obviously do not think informing the driver of their potential error is urgent at all. I fail to see how they believe acting in this way is having any effect on the safety of the children! Nor is the fact that the restricted time zone has been set as between the hours of 2pm and 4pm – school kicks out at 3.20pm, and after school clubs come out between 4pm and 5pm. What about the safety of the children between 4pm and 5pm? Which children are they protecting from 2pm to 3pm? I was not parked on a zig zag, or on double yellow lines. The camera car recorded me as being on a single yellow line on Windsor Road (although at the time I was actually Kimberley Road!!!). A yellow line that was painted on the road before the entire end of Windsor road was effectively blocked off to all traffic by constructing an island in the road, which provides a huge space for children to exit the school safely. There are in fact NO zig zag lines in the area at all! I agree whole heartedly that the safety of children is paramount, and if these restrictions are truly there for that purpose, the Council should be actively trying to enforce the restrictions by having a pedestrian officer on site. It’s interesting that so many people are willing to make abusive comments about me, accuse me of all sorts of parking contraventions I have never committed, and those I have been cleared of committing! Why is it that people see fit to accuse me of breaking the law, when the adjudicators rulings have cleared me of any wrong doing, and stated that the council are in fact the ones in the wrong?!?! It would seem the real issues with this case have been missed by many people – maybe they just read the headline? Or looked at the colour of my hair and made assumptions about me? I don’t know really, but I will be making many of the case documents available to anyone who wants to see them. I will let you all know how, and when, as soon as I’ve sorted a suitable platform for doing so.[/p][/quote]Well done Jo in your very comprehensive and balanced response. I too was shocked at the abuse and unkindness that has been written in this forum today about you. Completely unnecessary in my opinion and I admire you for having the guts to stand your ground and take on the council. jackiepipe

9:30pm Tue 3 Dec 13

dorsetspeed says...

indeed, very well done, Jo
indeed, very well done, Jo dorsetspeed

9:41pm Tue 3 Dec 13

spooki says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote:
Jo Green wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote:
Jo Green wrote:
manyogie wrote:
On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then?
Score Jo !
Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`
stopped on single yellow line where absolutely no danger posed to anyone, not zigzag
So your own admission you where illegally parked ,parking restrictions apply from 0800 until 1800
incorrect on both counts!
Sorry it seems was incorrect on one count the actual severity of the actual parking restrictions around baden Powell school ,it is such a shame you where not actually caught by a Warden as you would have not had a leg to stand on ,sadly you have managed to worm your way out of paying these justified fines
No worming involved, its called appealing against the tickets, obviously there was a problem with their issue and she won, whats wrong with that.
I'm all for the councils plugging this loophole hurry up and do it get signage up and catch these people who think they have a god given right to park whoever regardless of any restrictions during the school run ,it obviously works seeing as this woman was caught three times in five days the will soon realise the error of there esys when fines drop through there letter boxes on a regular basis !
Yes! Example : there are signs at the dreaded Castlepoint saying "no bicycles on upper level" but it doesn't mention horse & carriage, dog sledge, hot air balloon, etc. so does this mean I can park my tank there? No because it would be dangerous and plain stupid.
Use your common sense woman! If you've been caught doing the same thing three times in five days there's obviously a sign there (if there isn't one on the actual road). You do NOT need to park on a schools doorstep to pick up your child. Let them get some exercise! Actually, that suggestion of staggered school class/year release times isn't bad...
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]manyogie[/bold] wrote: On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then? Score Jo ! Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`[/p][/quote]stopped on single yellow line where absolutely no danger posed to anyone, not zigzag[/p][/quote]So your own admission you where illegally parked ,parking restrictions apply from 0800 until 1800[/p][/quote]incorrect on both counts![/p][/quote]Sorry it seems was incorrect on one count the actual severity of the actual parking restrictions around baden Powell school ,it is such a shame you where not actually caught by a Warden as you would have not had a leg to stand on ,sadly you have managed to worm your way out of paying these justified fines[/p][/quote]No worming involved, its called appealing against the tickets, obviously there was a problem with their issue and she won, whats wrong with that.[/p][/quote]I'm all for the councils plugging this loophole hurry up and do it get signage up and catch these people who think they have a god given right to park whoever regardless of any restrictions during the school run ,it obviously works seeing as this woman was caught three times in five days the will soon realise the error of there esys when fines drop through there letter boxes on a regular basis ![/p][/quote]Yes! Example : there are signs at the dreaded Castlepoint saying "no bicycles on upper level" but it doesn't mention horse & carriage, dog sledge, hot air balloon, etc. so does this mean I can park my tank there? No because it would be dangerous and plain stupid. Use your common sense woman! If you've been caught doing the same thing three times in five days there's obviously a sign there (if there isn't one on the actual road). You do NOT need to park on a schools doorstep to pick up your child. Let them get some exercise! Actually, that suggestion of staggered school class/year release times isn't bad... spooki

9:44pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Jo Green says...

utciad wrote:
we-shall-see wrote:
While I understand the council may have acted without proper authority in this case - does that woman not have any care about where she parks?

I sincerely hope a child is not injured as a result of her parking where the hell she pleases ……… Silly, selfish person - make your lazy child walk a few extra yards and park in the right place!!!
Trouble here is now 'If she can get away with it, we all can' so there will be ignorant and stupid self-centred parents doing as they like wherever they like now.
Obviously this woman has no conscience whatsoever. Hope someone does the same to her one day, and puts her dear little one in danger....then let's hear her scream!!

But of course, ALL laws apply to everyone else, BUT never to us, don't they...

This has just shown her up for what she really is, ignorant and selfish...
Seriously!?!?!?!
You hope someone puts my child in danger?
That's quite a threatening thing to say!
I can understand why people like you hide behind screen names, instead of having the courage put your name to your nasty thoughts and comments!
[quote][p][bold]utciad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we-shall-see[/bold] wrote: While I understand the council may have acted without proper authority in this case - does that woman not have any care about where she parks? I sincerely hope a child is not injured as a result of her parking where the hell she pleases ……… Silly, selfish person - make your lazy child walk a few extra yards and park in the right place!!![/p][/quote]Trouble here is now 'If she can get away with it, we all can' so there will be ignorant and stupid self-centred parents doing as they like wherever they like now. Obviously this woman has no conscience whatsoever. Hope someone does the same to her one day, and puts her dear little one in danger....then let's hear her scream!! But of course, ALL laws apply to everyone else, BUT never to us, don't they... This has just shown her up for what she really is, ignorant and selfish...[/p][/quote]Seriously!?!?!?! You hope someone puts my child in danger? That's quite a threatening thing to say! I can understand why people like you hide behind screen names, instead of having the courage put your name to your nasty thoughts and comments! Jo Green

9:55pm Tue 3 Dec 13

alasdair1967 says...

Jo Green wrote:
The first adjudicator decision was in May 2013
The second, and final, decision was in September 2013
As far as I can tell, the Council have made no changes to the area, or their procedures, since the Adjudicators very clear rulings.
The Mobile Camera Car is still operating in this area, and issuing tickets, knowing full well that they are not enforceable!
If their objective is to protect the children from danger, they can clearly see every day that their current method is not working, yet they make no changes!
They just keep sending the car around in order to generate more revenue.
The only difference now, is that they are obtaining personal data from the DVLA, on the grounds that they claim to have evidence of a parking contravention. They are fully aware that they have no such evidence, so, in my view that is a serious breach of the Data Protection Act!

These tickets drop through your letter box around 2 weeks after the so called evidence has been gathered. So the Council obviously do not think informing the driver of their potential error is urgent at all.
I fail to see how they believe acting in this way is having any effect on the safety of the children!
Nor is the fact that the restricted time zone has been set as between the hours of 2pm and 4pm – school kicks out at 3.20pm, and after school clubs come out between 4pm and 5pm. What about the safety of the children between 4pm and 5pm? Which children are they protecting from 2pm to 3pm?

I was not parked on a zig zag, or on double yellow lines.
The camera car recorded me as being on a single yellow line on Windsor Road (although at the time I was actually Kimberley Road!!!). A yellow line that was painted on the road before the entire end of Windsor road was effectively blocked off to all traffic by constructing an island in the road, which provides a huge space for children to exit the school safely.
There are in fact NO zig zag lines in the area at all!

I agree whole heartedly that the safety of children is paramount, and if these restrictions are truly there for that purpose, the Council should be actively trying to enforce the restrictions by having a pedestrian officer on site.

It’s interesting that so many people are willing to make abusive comments about me, accuse me of all sorts of parking contraventions I have never committed, and those I have been cleared of committing!
Why is it that people see fit to accuse me of breaking the law, when the adjudicators rulings have cleared me of any wrong doing, and stated that the council are in fact the ones in the wrong?!?!

It would seem the real issues with this case have been missed by many people – maybe they just read the headline? Or looked at the colour of my hair and made assumptions about me? I don’t know really, but I will be making many of the case documents available to anyone who wants to see them. I will let you all know how, and when, as soon as I’ve sorted a suitable platform for doing so.
So how would you have felt if you had been issued a parking ticket by a traffic warden ,you where illegally parked on a single yellow line contravening the local parking restrictions NOT ONCE BUT THREE TIMES ,I hope to hell the council can find away to plug the loop hole so all people who think they have a god given right to park where they like during the school runs have the shock of parking fines landing on there doorstep with NO possibility of appeal
[quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: The first adjudicator decision was in May 2013 The second, and final, decision was in September 2013 As far as I can tell, the Council have made no changes to the area, or their procedures, since the Adjudicators very clear rulings. The Mobile Camera Car is still operating in this area, and issuing tickets, knowing full well that they are not enforceable! If their objective is to protect the children from danger, they can clearly see every day that their current method is not working, yet they make no changes! They just keep sending the car around in order to generate more revenue. The only difference now, is that they are obtaining personal data from the DVLA, on the grounds that they claim to have evidence of a parking contravention. They are fully aware that they have no such evidence, so, in my view that is a serious breach of the Data Protection Act! These tickets drop through your letter box around 2 weeks after the so called evidence has been gathered. So the Council obviously do not think informing the driver of their potential error is urgent at all. I fail to see how they believe acting in this way is having any effect on the safety of the children! Nor is the fact that the restricted time zone has been set as between the hours of 2pm and 4pm – school kicks out at 3.20pm, and after school clubs come out between 4pm and 5pm. What about the safety of the children between 4pm and 5pm? Which children are they protecting from 2pm to 3pm? I was not parked on a zig zag, or on double yellow lines. The camera car recorded me as being on a single yellow line on Windsor Road (although at the time I was actually Kimberley Road!!!). A yellow line that was painted on the road before the entire end of Windsor road was effectively blocked off to all traffic by constructing an island in the road, which provides a huge space for children to exit the school safely. There are in fact NO zig zag lines in the area at all! I agree whole heartedly that the safety of children is paramount, and if these restrictions are truly there for that purpose, the Council should be actively trying to enforce the restrictions by having a pedestrian officer on site. It’s interesting that so many people are willing to make abusive comments about me, accuse me of all sorts of parking contraventions I have never committed, and those I have been cleared of committing! Why is it that people see fit to accuse me of breaking the law, when the adjudicators rulings have cleared me of any wrong doing, and stated that the council are in fact the ones in the wrong?!?! It would seem the real issues with this case have been missed by many people – maybe they just read the headline? Or looked at the colour of my hair and made assumptions about me? I don’t know really, but I will be making many of the case documents available to anyone who wants to see them. I will let you all know how, and when, as soon as I’ve sorted a suitable platform for doing so.[/p][/quote]So how would you have felt if you had been issued a parking ticket by a traffic warden ,you where illegally parked on a single yellow line contravening the local parking restrictions NOT ONCE BUT THREE TIMES ,I hope to hell the council can find away to plug the loop hole so all people who think they have a god given right to park where they like during the school runs have the shock of parking fines landing on there doorstep with NO possibility of appeal alasdair1967

10:04pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Jo Green says...

BarrHumbug wrote:
PokesdownMark wrote:
Narwhal wrote:
MCAME1989 wrote:
What these camera cars do recognise is that there is a difference in parking for a long time and stopping for two minutes!
It does not matter if it is only for 20 seconds, that is long enough for a child to loose its life :(
I hope the driver keeps his eyes out for children crossing the road. If the camera car hit a child that would be a terrible irony.

Thread annoys me greatly. It is not rocket science. The camera car is simply not able to distinguish between parking, stopping and waiting. These are three different things. There are laws for each one. Each has a combination of road markings and signage. The camera can only reliably detect a stopped vehicle where there should not be a stopped vehicle. Here are the councils own words:

QUOTE
Bournemouth Borough Council only use the camera car in location such as bus stops, pedestrian crossings, school entranceway zigzags and also where double yellow lines and kerb markings advising loading/unloading is prohibited.
ENDQUOTE

The tribunal would not have found in this ladies favour if the council had been operating the camera car in a proper and legal manner.

Also here are the councils OWN WORDS (complete with typos and poor grammer) with regard for stopping where there are both DOUBLE yellow lines AND kerb marking...

Double Yellow lines with kerb markings - Contravention code 02:
The double yellow lines are shown along the edge of the kerb indicating that no parking is available at any time. Theere are also kerb marking along the pavement that advise a loading ban is also in force for the location.
The yellow lines and kerb markings are applicable through to the boundary of the property taking in carriageway, pavement and grass verge areas.
A driver is permitted to stop for the purpose of allowing a passenger to board or alight the vehicle.
Disabled badge holders are not permitted to use their disabled badges in this location

This is from: http://www.bournemou


th.gov.uk/StreetsTra


nsport/Parking/Parki


ng-Restrictions-Cont


raventions/HowNotToB


eIssuedWithAPenaltyC


hargeNoticeOnStreet.


aspx

So - there - a driver IS PERMITTED TO STOP FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A PASSENGER TO BOARD OR ALIGHT THE VEHICLE.



I wish you could highlight text without resorting to caps :-)
The guideline of the law may allow a passenger/s to board or alight a vehicle but it certainly doesn't mean turning up at 3pm and waiting till 3:15, using the time standing around chatting to the other mums about who's having an affair with who or eyeing up someone else's husband while their waiting for their kids to come out of the school?
BarrHumbug - you seem like you know the area well, and that you may be another parent of a child at the school?? As another post states, I am very easy to spot, so please feel free to come over and chat to me about all this whilst we wait in the incredibly large, safe, area for the children to come out of school safely - despite all the cars covering every single yellow line in the area :)
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PokesdownMark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Narwhal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MCAME1989[/bold] wrote: What these camera cars do recognise is that there is a difference in parking for a long time and stopping for two minutes![/p][/quote]It does not matter if it is only for 20 seconds, that is long enough for a child to loose its life :([/p][/quote]I hope the driver keeps his eyes out for children crossing the road. If the camera car hit a child that would be a terrible irony. Thread annoys me greatly. It is not rocket science. The camera car is simply not able to distinguish between parking, stopping and waiting. These are three different things. There are laws for each one. Each has a combination of road markings and signage. The camera can only reliably detect a stopped vehicle where there should not be a stopped vehicle. Here are the councils own words: QUOTE Bournemouth Borough Council only use the camera car in location such as bus stops, pedestrian crossings, school entranceway zigzags and also where double yellow lines and kerb markings advising loading/unloading is prohibited. ENDQUOTE The tribunal would not have found in this ladies favour if the council had been operating the camera car in a proper and legal manner. Also here are the councils OWN WORDS (complete with typos and poor grammer) with regard for stopping where there are both DOUBLE yellow lines AND kerb marking... Double Yellow lines with kerb markings - Contravention code 02: The double yellow lines are shown along the edge of the kerb indicating that no parking is available at any time. Theere are also kerb marking along the pavement that advise a loading ban is also in force for the location. The yellow lines and kerb markings are applicable through to the boundary of the property taking in carriageway, pavement and grass verge areas. A driver is permitted to stop for the purpose of allowing a passenger to board or alight the vehicle. Disabled badge holders are not permitted to use their disabled badges in this location This is from: http://www.bournemou th.gov.uk/StreetsTra nsport/Parking/Parki ng-Restrictions-Cont raventions/HowNotToB eIssuedWithAPenaltyC hargeNoticeOnStreet. aspx So - there - a driver IS PERMITTED TO STOP FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A PASSENGER TO BOARD OR ALIGHT THE VEHICLE. I wish you could highlight text without resorting to caps :-)[/p][/quote]The guideline of the law may allow a passenger/s to board or alight a vehicle but it certainly doesn't mean turning up at 3pm and waiting till 3:15, using the time standing around chatting to the other mums about who's having an affair with who or eyeing up someone else's husband while their waiting for their kids to come out of the school?[/p][/quote]BarrHumbug - you seem like you know the area well, and that you may be another parent of a child at the school?? As another post states, I am very easy to spot, so please feel free to come over and chat to me about all this whilst we wait in the incredibly large, safe, area for the children to come out of school safely - despite all the cars covering every single yellow line in the area :) Jo Green

10:14pm Tue 3 Dec 13

alasdair1967 says...

Jo Green wrote:
The first adjudicator decision was in May 2013
The second, and final, decision was in September 2013
As far as I can tell, the Council have made no changes to the area, or their procedures, since the Adjudicators very clear rulings.
The Mobile Camera Car is still operating in this area, and issuing tickets, knowing full well that they are not enforceable!
If their objective is to protect the children from danger, they can clearly see every day that their current method is not working, yet they make no changes!
They just keep sending the car around in order to generate more revenue.
The only difference now, is that they are obtaining personal data from the DVLA, on the grounds that they claim to have evidence of a parking contravention. They are fully aware that they have no such evidence, so, in my view that is a serious breach of the Data Protection Act!

These tickets drop through your letter box around 2 weeks after the so called evidence has been gathered. So the Council obviously do not think informing the driver of their potential error is urgent at all.
I fail to see how they believe acting in this way is having any effect on the safety of the children!
Nor is the fact that the restricted time zone has been set as between the hours of 2pm and 4pm – school kicks out at 3.20pm, and after school clubs come out between 4pm and 5pm. What about the safety of the children between 4pm and 5pm? Which children are they protecting from 2pm to 3pm?

I was not parked on a zig zag, or on double yellow lines.
The camera car recorded me as being on a single yellow line on Windsor Road (although at the time I was actually Kimberley Road!!!). A yellow line that was painted on the road before the entire end of Windsor road was effectively blocked off to all traffic by constructing an island in the road, which provides a huge space for children to exit the school safely.
There are in fact NO zig zag lines in the area at all!

I agree whole heartedly that the safety of children is paramount, and if these restrictions are truly there for that purpose, the Council should be actively trying to enforce the restrictions by having a pedestrian officer on site.

It’s interesting that so many people are willing to make abusive comments about me, accuse me of all sorts of parking contraventions I have never committed, and those I have been cleared of committing!
Why is it that people see fit to accuse me of breaking the law, when the adjudicators rulings have cleared me of any wrong doing, and stated that the council are in fact the ones in the wrong?!?!

It would seem the real issues with this case have been missed by many people – maybe they just read the headline? Or looked at the colour of my hair and made assumptions about me? I don’t know really, but I will be making many of the case documents available to anyone who wants to see them. I will let you all know how, and when, as soon as I’ve sorted a suitable platform for doing so.
The parking restrictions in Windsor road are as follows

NO PARKING 8 am - 10 am & 2 pm - 4 pm 31 August till 23 July
These restrictions also prevent loading and unloading ,

So what part of you where illegally parked do you not understand ? Yes it has been proven that the parking tickets you recieved where not issued correctly ,NO IFS NO BUTS THE FACT OF THE MATTER REMAINS YOU WHERE STILL ILLEGALLY PARKED AND IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE ABOVE PARKING RESTRICTIONS
[quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: The first adjudicator decision was in May 2013 The second, and final, decision was in September 2013 As far as I can tell, the Council have made no changes to the area, or their procedures, since the Adjudicators very clear rulings. The Mobile Camera Car is still operating in this area, and issuing tickets, knowing full well that they are not enforceable! If their objective is to protect the children from danger, they can clearly see every day that their current method is not working, yet they make no changes! They just keep sending the car around in order to generate more revenue. The only difference now, is that they are obtaining personal data from the DVLA, on the grounds that they claim to have evidence of a parking contravention. They are fully aware that they have no such evidence, so, in my view that is a serious breach of the Data Protection Act! These tickets drop through your letter box around 2 weeks after the so called evidence has been gathered. So the Council obviously do not think informing the driver of their potential error is urgent at all. I fail to see how they believe acting in this way is having any effect on the safety of the children! Nor is the fact that the restricted time zone has been set as between the hours of 2pm and 4pm – school kicks out at 3.20pm, and after school clubs come out between 4pm and 5pm. What about the safety of the children between 4pm and 5pm? Which children are they protecting from 2pm to 3pm? I was not parked on a zig zag, or on double yellow lines. The camera car recorded me as being on a single yellow line on Windsor Road (although at the time I was actually Kimberley Road!!!). A yellow line that was painted on the road before the entire end of Windsor road was effectively blocked off to all traffic by constructing an island in the road, which provides a huge space for children to exit the school safely. There are in fact NO zig zag lines in the area at all! I agree whole heartedly that the safety of children is paramount, and if these restrictions are truly there for that purpose, the Council should be actively trying to enforce the restrictions by having a pedestrian officer on site. It’s interesting that so many people are willing to make abusive comments about me, accuse me of all sorts of parking contraventions I have never committed, and those I have been cleared of committing! Why is it that people see fit to accuse me of breaking the law, when the adjudicators rulings have cleared me of any wrong doing, and stated that the council are in fact the ones in the wrong?!?! It would seem the real issues with this case have been missed by many people – maybe they just read the headline? Or looked at the colour of my hair and made assumptions about me? I don’t know really, but I will be making many of the case documents available to anyone who wants to see them. I will let you all know how, and when, as soon as I’ve sorted a suitable platform for doing so.[/p][/quote]The parking restrictions in Windsor road are as follows NO PARKING 8 am - 10 am & 2 pm - 4 pm 31 August till 23 July These restrictions also prevent loading and unloading , So what part of you where illegally parked do you not understand ? Yes it has been proven that the parking tickets you recieved where not issued correctly ,NO IFS NO BUTS THE FACT OF THE MATTER REMAINS YOU WHERE STILL ILLEGALLY PARKED AND IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE ABOVE PARKING RESTRICTIONS alasdair1967

10:23pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Jo Green says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
Jo Green wrote:
The first adjudicator decision was in May 2013
The second, and final, decision was in September 2013
As far as I can tell, the Council have made no changes to the area, or their procedures, since the Adjudicators very clear rulings.
The Mobile Camera Car is still operating in this area, and issuing tickets, knowing full well that they are not enforceable!
If their objective is to protect the children from danger, they can clearly see every day that their current method is not working, yet they make no changes!
They just keep sending the car around in order to generate more revenue.
The only difference now, is that they are obtaining personal data from the DVLA, on the grounds that they claim to have evidence of a parking contravention. They are fully aware that they have no such evidence, so, in my view that is a serious breach of the Data Protection Act!

These tickets drop through your letter box around 2 weeks after the so called evidence has been gathered. So the Council obviously do not think informing the driver of their potential error is urgent at all.
I fail to see how they believe acting in this way is having any effect on the safety of the children!
Nor is the fact that the restricted time zone has been set as between the hours of 2pm and 4pm – school kicks out at 3.20pm, and after school clubs come out between 4pm and 5pm. What about the safety of the children between 4pm and 5pm? Which children are they protecting from 2pm to 3pm?

I was not parked on a zig zag, or on double yellow lines.
The camera car recorded me as being on a single yellow line on Windsor Road (although at the time I was actually Kimberley Road!!!). A yellow line that was painted on the road before the entire end of Windsor road was effectively blocked off to all traffic by constructing an island in the road, which provides a huge space for children to exit the school safely.
There are in fact NO zig zag lines in the area at all!

I agree whole heartedly that the safety of children is paramount, and if these restrictions are truly there for that purpose, the Council should be actively trying to enforce the restrictions by having a pedestrian officer on site.

It’s interesting that so many people are willing to make abusive comments about me, accuse me of all sorts of parking contraventions I have never committed, and those I have been cleared of committing!
Why is it that people see fit to accuse me of breaking the law, when the adjudicators rulings have cleared me of any wrong doing, and stated that the council are in fact the ones in the wrong?!?!

It would seem the real issues with this case have been missed by many people – maybe they just read the headline? Or looked at the colour of my hair and made assumptions about me? I don’t know really, but I will be making many of the case documents available to anyone who wants to see them. I will let you all know how, and when, as soon as I’ve sorted a suitable platform for doing so.
The parking restrictions in Windsor road are as follows

NO PARKING 8 am - 10 am &amp; 2 pm - 4 pm 31 August till 23 July
These restrictions also prevent loading and unloading ,

So what part of you where illegally parked do you not understand ? Yes it has been proven that the parking tickets you recieved where not issued correctly ,NO IFS NO BUTS THE FACT OF THE MATTER REMAINS YOU WHERE STILL ILLEGALLY PARKED AND IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE ABOVE PARKING RESTRICTIONS
It would seem that the fact I was cleared of being illegally parked, is the part some people are having difficulties understanding!
You, and others, shouting at me, calling me names, wishing harm to my children etc etc is not going to change that fact.
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: The first adjudicator decision was in May 2013 The second, and final, decision was in September 2013 As far as I can tell, the Council have made no changes to the area, or their procedures, since the Adjudicators very clear rulings. The Mobile Camera Car is still operating in this area, and issuing tickets, knowing full well that they are not enforceable! If their objective is to protect the children from danger, they can clearly see every day that their current method is not working, yet they make no changes! They just keep sending the car around in order to generate more revenue. The only difference now, is that they are obtaining personal data from the DVLA, on the grounds that they claim to have evidence of a parking contravention. They are fully aware that they have no such evidence, so, in my view that is a serious breach of the Data Protection Act! These tickets drop through your letter box around 2 weeks after the so called evidence has been gathered. So the Council obviously do not think informing the driver of their potential error is urgent at all. I fail to see how they believe acting in this way is having any effect on the safety of the children! Nor is the fact that the restricted time zone has been set as between the hours of 2pm and 4pm – school kicks out at 3.20pm, and after school clubs come out between 4pm and 5pm. What about the safety of the children between 4pm and 5pm? Which children are they protecting from 2pm to 3pm? I was not parked on a zig zag, or on double yellow lines. The camera car recorded me as being on a single yellow line on Windsor Road (although at the time I was actually Kimberley Road!!!). A yellow line that was painted on the road before the entire end of Windsor road was effectively blocked off to all traffic by constructing an island in the road, which provides a huge space for children to exit the school safely. There are in fact NO zig zag lines in the area at all! I agree whole heartedly that the safety of children is paramount, and if these restrictions are truly there for that purpose, the Council should be actively trying to enforce the restrictions by having a pedestrian officer on site. It’s interesting that so many people are willing to make abusive comments about me, accuse me of all sorts of parking contraventions I have never committed, and those I have been cleared of committing! Why is it that people see fit to accuse me of breaking the law, when the adjudicators rulings have cleared me of any wrong doing, and stated that the council are in fact the ones in the wrong?!?! It would seem the real issues with this case have been missed by many people – maybe they just read the headline? Or looked at the colour of my hair and made assumptions about me? I don’t know really, but I will be making many of the case documents available to anyone who wants to see them. I will let you all know how, and when, as soon as I’ve sorted a suitable platform for doing so.[/p][/quote]The parking restrictions in Windsor road are as follows NO PARKING 8 am - 10 am & 2 pm - 4 pm 31 August till 23 July These restrictions also prevent loading and unloading , So what part of you where illegally parked do you not understand ? Yes it has been proven that the parking tickets you recieved where not issued correctly ,NO IFS NO BUTS THE FACT OF THE MATTER REMAINS YOU WHERE STILL ILLEGALLY PARKED AND IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE ABOVE PARKING RESTRICTIONS[/p][/quote]It would seem that the fact I was cleared of being illegally parked, is the part some people are having difficulties understanding! You, and others, shouting at me, calling me names, wishing harm to my children etc etc is not going to change that fact. Jo Green

10:35pm Tue 3 Dec 13

alasdair1967 says...

Jo Green wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote:
Jo Green wrote:
The first adjudicator decision was in May 2013
The second, and final, decision was in September 2013
As far as I can tell, the Council have made no changes to the area, or their procedures, since the Adjudicators very clear rulings.
The Mobile Camera Car is still operating in this area, and issuing tickets, knowing full well that they are not enforceable!
If their objective is to protect the children from danger, they can clearly see every day that their current method is not working, yet they make no changes!
They just keep sending the car around in order to generate more revenue.
The only difference now, is that they are obtaining personal data from the DVLA, on the grounds that they claim to have evidence of a parking contravention. They are fully aware that they have no such evidence, so, in my view that is a serious breach of the Data Protection Act!

These tickets drop through your letter box around 2 weeks after the so called evidence has been gathered. So the Council obviously do not think informing the driver of their potential error is urgent at all.
I fail to see how they believe acting in this way is having any effect on the safety of the children!
Nor is the fact that the restricted time zone has been set as between the hours of 2pm and 4pm – school kicks out at 3.20pm, and after school clubs come out between 4pm and 5pm. What about the safety of the children between 4pm and 5pm? Which children are they protecting from 2pm to 3pm?

I was not parked on a zig zag, or on double yellow lines.
The camera car recorded me as being on a single yellow line on Windsor Road (although at the time I was actually Kimberley Road!!!). A yellow line that was painted on the road before the entire end of Windsor road was effectively blocked off to all traffic by constructing an island in the road, which provides a huge space for children to exit the school safely.
There are in fact NO zig zag lines in the area at all!

I agree whole heartedly that the safety of children is paramount, and if these restrictions are truly there for that purpose, the Council should be actively trying to enforce the restrictions by having a pedestrian officer on site.

It’s interesting that so many people are willing to make abusive comments about me, accuse me of all sorts of parking contraventions I have never committed, and those I have been cleared of committing!
Why is it that people see fit to accuse me of breaking the law, when the adjudicators rulings have cleared me of any wrong doing, and stated that the council are in fact the ones in the wrong?!?!

It would seem the real issues with this case have been missed by many people – maybe they just read the headline? Or looked at the colour of my hair and made assumptions about me? I don’t know really, but I will be making many of the case documents available to anyone who wants to see them. I will let you all know how, and when, as soon as I’ve sorted a suitable platform for doing so.
The parking restrictions in Windsor road are as follows

NO PARKING 8 am - 10 am &amp; 2 pm - 4 pm 31 August till 23 July
These restrictions also prevent loading and unloading ,

So what part of you where illegally parked do you not understand ? Yes it has been proven that the parking tickets you recieved where not issued correctly ,NO IFS NO BUTS THE FACT OF THE MATTER REMAINS YOU WHERE STILL ILLEGALLY PARKED AND IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE ABOVE PARKING RESTRICTIONS
It would seem that the fact I was cleared of being illegally parked, is the part some people are having difficulties understanding!
You, and others, shouting at me, calling me names, wishing harm to my children etc etc is not going to change that fact.
If I have read your summary correctly You where cleared on a technicality due to the tickets not being enforceable DUE to the nature that the evidence and your personal details where presented ,you have NOT been cleared of illegal parking there is a difference ! If a traffic warden had issued you a parking ticket for contravening the parking restrictions THE TICKET WOULD HAVE BEEN ENFORCEABLE
[quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: The first adjudicator decision was in May 2013 The second, and final, decision was in September 2013 As far as I can tell, the Council have made no changes to the area, or their procedures, since the Adjudicators very clear rulings. The Mobile Camera Car is still operating in this area, and issuing tickets, knowing full well that they are not enforceable! If their objective is to protect the children from danger, they can clearly see every day that their current method is not working, yet they make no changes! They just keep sending the car around in order to generate more revenue. The only difference now, is that they are obtaining personal data from the DVLA, on the grounds that they claim to have evidence of a parking contravention. They are fully aware that they have no such evidence, so, in my view that is a serious breach of the Data Protection Act! These tickets drop through your letter box around 2 weeks after the so called evidence has been gathered. So the Council obviously do not think informing the driver of their potential error is urgent at all. I fail to see how they believe acting in this way is having any effect on the safety of the children! Nor is the fact that the restricted time zone has been set as between the hours of 2pm and 4pm – school kicks out at 3.20pm, and after school clubs come out between 4pm and 5pm. What about the safety of the children between 4pm and 5pm? Which children are they protecting from 2pm to 3pm? I was not parked on a zig zag, or on double yellow lines. The camera car recorded me as being on a single yellow line on Windsor Road (although at the time I was actually Kimberley Road!!!). A yellow line that was painted on the road before the entire end of Windsor road was effectively blocked off to all traffic by constructing an island in the road, which provides a huge space for children to exit the school safely. There are in fact NO zig zag lines in the area at all! I agree whole heartedly that the safety of children is paramount, and if these restrictions are truly there for that purpose, the Council should be actively trying to enforce the restrictions by having a pedestrian officer on site. It’s interesting that so many people are willing to make abusive comments about me, accuse me of all sorts of parking contraventions I have never committed, and those I have been cleared of committing! Why is it that people see fit to accuse me of breaking the law, when the adjudicators rulings have cleared me of any wrong doing, and stated that the council are in fact the ones in the wrong?!?! It would seem the real issues with this case have been missed by many people – maybe they just read the headline? Or looked at the colour of my hair and made assumptions about me? I don’t know really, but I will be making many of the case documents available to anyone who wants to see them. I will let you all know how, and when, as soon as I’ve sorted a suitable platform for doing so.[/p][/quote]The parking restrictions in Windsor road are as follows NO PARKING 8 am - 10 am & 2 pm - 4 pm 31 August till 23 July These restrictions also prevent loading and unloading , So what part of you where illegally parked do you not understand ? Yes it has been proven that the parking tickets you recieved where not issued correctly ,NO IFS NO BUTS THE FACT OF THE MATTER REMAINS YOU WHERE STILL ILLEGALLY PARKED AND IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE ABOVE PARKING RESTRICTIONS[/p][/quote]It would seem that the fact I was cleared of being illegally parked, is the part some people are having difficulties understanding! You, and others, shouting at me, calling me names, wishing harm to my children etc etc is not going to change that fact.[/p][/quote]If I have read your summary correctly You where cleared on a technicality due to the tickets not being enforceable DUE to the nature that the evidence and your personal details where presented ,you have NOT been cleared of illegal parking there is a difference ! If a traffic warden had issued you a parking ticket for contravening the parking restrictions THE TICKET WOULD HAVE BEEN ENFORCEABLE alasdair1967

10:38pm Tue 3 Dec 13

pete woodley says...

Jo,you were cleared on a technicality not because you were innocent,were you not.Ther are alot like you outside Hillview school.
Jo,you were cleared on a technicality not because you were innocent,were you not.Ther are alot like you outside Hillview school. pete woodley

10:49pm Tue 3 Dec 13

alasdair1967 says...

pete woodley wrote:
Jo,you were cleared on a technicality not because you were innocent,were you not.Ther are alot like you outside Hillview school.
She can't see the wood for the trees ,I'm sure if anyone actually took up her invitation to discuss this matter face to face would find her ILLEGALLY parked in exactly the same place as she was caught not once not twice but three times
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: Jo,you were cleared on a technicality not because you were innocent,were you not.Ther are alot like you outside Hillview school.[/p][/quote]She can't see the wood for the trees ,I'm sure if anyone actually took up her invitation to discuss this matter face to face would find her ILLEGALLY parked in exactly the same place as she was caught not once not twice but three times alasdair1967

10:55pm Tue 3 Dec 13

alasdair1967 says...

Jo Green wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
PokesdownMark wrote:
Narwhal wrote:
MCAME1989 wrote:
What these camera cars do recognise is that there is a difference in parking for a long time and stopping for two minutes!
It does not matter if it is only for 20 seconds, that is long enough for a child to loose its life :(
I hope the driver keeps his eyes out for children crossing the road. If the camera car hit a child that would be a terrible irony.

Thread annoys me greatly. It is not rocket science. The camera car is simply not able to distinguish between parking, stopping and waiting. These are three different things. There are laws for each one. Each has a combination of road markings and signage. The camera can only reliably detect a stopped vehicle where there should not be a stopped vehicle. Here are the councils own words:

QUOTE
Bournemouth Borough Council only use the camera car in location such as bus stops, pedestrian crossings, school entranceway zigzags and also where double yellow lines and kerb markings advising loading/unloading is prohibited.
ENDQUOTE

The tribunal would not have found in this ladies favour if the council had been operating the camera car in a proper and legal manner.

Also here are the councils OWN WORDS (complete with typos and poor grammer) with regard for stopping where there are both DOUBLE yellow lines AND kerb marking...

Double Yellow lines with kerb markings - Contravention code 02:
The double yellow lines are shown along the edge of the kerb indicating that no parking is available at any time. Theere are also kerb marking along the pavement that advise a loading ban is also in force for the location.
The yellow lines and kerb markings are applicable through to the boundary of the property taking in carriageway, pavement and grass verge areas.
A driver is permitted to stop for the purpose of allowing a passenger to board or alight the vehicle.
Disabled badge holders are not permitted to use their disabled badges in this location

This is from: http://www.bournemou



th.gov.uk/StreetsTra



nsport/Parking/Parki



ng-Restrictions-Cont



raventions/HowNotToB



eIssuedWithAPenaltyC



hargeNoticeOnStreet.



aspx

So - there - a driver IS PERMITTED TO STOP FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A PASSENGER TO BOARD OR ALIGHT THE VEHICLE.



I wish you could highlight text without resorting to caps :-)
The guideline of the law may allow a passenger/s to board or alight a vehicle but it certainly doesn't mean turning up at 3pm and waiting till 3:15, using the time standing around chatting to the other mums about who's having an affair with who or eyeing up someone else's husband while their waiting for their kids to come out of the school?
BarrHumbug - you seem like you know the area well, and that you may be another parent of a child at the school?? As another post states, I am very easy to spot, so please feel free to come over and chat to me about all this whilst we wait in the incredibly large, safe, area for the children to come out of school safely - despite all the cars covering every single yellow line in the area :)
"Despite all the cars covering every single yellow line in the area "

Come on Poole council get every spare traffic warden available en masse down to Windsor road tomorrow and ticket every illegally parked car that should easily cover the lost £210
[quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PokesdownMark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Narwhal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MCAME1989[/bold] wrote: What these camera cars do recognise is that there is a difference in parking for a long time and stopping for two minutes![/p][/quote]It does not matter if it is only for 20 seconds, that is long enough for a child to loose its life :([/p][/quote]I hope the driver keeps his eyes out for children crossing the road. If the camera car hit a child that would be a terrible irony. Thread annoys me greatly. It is not rocket science. The camera car is simply not able to distinguish between parking, stopping and waiting. These are three different things. There are laws for each one. Each has a combination of road markings and signage. The camera can only reliably detect a stopped vehicle where there should not be a stopped vehicle. Here are the councils own words: QUOTE Bournemouth Borough Council only use the camera car in location such as bus stops, pedestrian crossings, school entranceway zigzags and also where double yellow lines and kerb markings advising loading/unloading is prohibited. ENDQUOTE The tribunal would not have found in this ladies favour if the council had been operating the camera car in a proper and legal manner. Also here are the councils OWN WORDS (complete with typos and poor grammer) with regard for stopping where there are both DOUBLE yellow lines AND kerb marking... Double Yellow lines with kerb markings - Contravention code 02: The double yellow lines are shown along the edge of the kerb indicating that no parking is available at any time. Theere are also kerb marking along the pavement that advise a loading ban is also in force for the location. The yellow lines and kerb markings are applicable through to the boundary of the property taking in carriageway, pavement and grass verge areas. A driver is permitted to stop for the purpose of allowing a passenger to board or alight the vehicle. Disabled badge holders are not permitted to use their disabled badges in this location This is from: http://www.bournemou th.gov.uk/StreetsTra nsport/Parking/Parki ng-Restrictions-Cont raventions/HowNotToB eIssuedWithAPenaltyC hargeNoticeOnStreet. aspx So - there - a driver IS PERMITTED TO STOP FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A PASSENGER TO BOARD OR ALIGHT THE VEHICLE. I wish you could highlight text without resorting to caps :-)[/p][/quote]The guideline of the law may allow a passenger/s to board or alight a vehicle but it certainly doesn't mean turning up at 3pm and waiting till 3:15, using the time standing around chatting to the other mums about who's having an affair with who or eyeing up someone else's husband while their waiting for their kids to come out of the school?[/p][/quote]BarrHumbug - you seem like you know the area well, and that you may be another parent of a child at the school?? As another post states, I am very easy to spot, so please feel free to come over and chat to me about all this whilst we wait in the incredibly large, safe, area for the children to come out of school safely - despite all the cars covering every single yellow line in the area :)[/p][/quote]"Despite all the cars covering every single yellow line in the area " Come on Poole council get every spare traffic warden available en masse down to Windsor road tomorrow and ticket every illegally parked car that should easily cover the lost £210 alasdair1967

11:05pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Jo Green says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
Jo Green wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
PokesdownMark wrote:
Narwhal wrote:
MCAME1989 wrote:
What these camera cars do recognise is that there is a difference in parking for a long time and stopping for two minutes!
It does not matter if it is only for 20 seconds, that is long enough for a child to loose its life :(
I hope the driver keeps his eyes out for children crossing the road. If the camera car hit a child that would be a terrible irony.

Thread annoys me greatly. It is not rocket science. The camera car is simply not able to distinguish between parking, stopping and waiting. These are three different things. There are laws for each one. Each has a combination of road markings and signage. The camera can only reliably detect a stopped vehicle where there should not be a stopped vehicle. Here are the councils own words:

QUOTE
Bournemouth Borough Council only use the camera car in location such as bus stops, pedestrian crossings, school entranceway zigzags and also where double yellow lines and kerb markings advising loading/unloading is prohibited.
ENDQUOTE

The tribunal would not have found in this ladies favour if the council had been operating the camera car in a proper and legal manner.

Also here are the councils OWN WORDS (complete with typos and poor grammer) with regard for stopping where there are both DOUBLE yellow lines AND kerb marking...

Double Yellow lines with kerb markings - Contravention code 02:
The double yellow lines are shown along the edge of the kerb indicating that no parking is available at any time. Theere are also kerb marking along the pavement that advise a loading ban is also in force for the location.
The yellow lines and kerb markings are applicable through to the boundary of the property taking in carriageway, pavement and grass verge areas.
A driver is permitted to stop for the purpose of allowing a passenger to board or alight the vehicle.
Disabled badge holders are not permitted to use their disabled badges in this location

This is from: http://www.bournemou




th.gov.uk/StreetsTra




nsport/Parking/Parki




ng-Restrictions-Cont




raventions/HowNotToB




eIssuedWithAPenaltyC




hargeNoticeOnStreet.




aspx

So - there - a driver IS PERMITTED TO STOP FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A PASSENGER TO BOARD OR ALIGHT THE VEHICLE.



I wish you could highlight text without resorting to caps :-)
The guideline of the law may allow a passenger/s to board or alight a vehicle but it certainly doesn't mean turning up at 3pm and waiting till 3:15, using the time standing around chatting to the other mums about who's having an affair with who or eyeing up someone else's husband while their waiting for their kids to come out of the school?
BarrHumbug - you seem like you know the area well, and that you may be another parent of a child at the school?? As another post states, I am very easy to spot, so please feel free to come over and chat to me about all this whilst we wait in the incredibly large, safe, area for the children to come out of school safely - despite all the cars covering every single yellow line in the area :)
&quot;Despite all the cars covering every single yellow line in the area "

Come on Poole council get every spare traffic warden available en masse down to Windsor road tomorrow and ticket every illegally parked car that should easily cover the lost £210
My point exactly!
If this was really about child safety, the issue of cars parking on the single yellow lines in the area would have been targeted like this a long time ago.
The use of the camera car is purely to generate income on a regular basis!
However, once the cars no longer stop on the single yellow lines, there will be nowhere left other than in front of peoples driveways etc - which are all currently left clear (rightly so) to enable residents to gain access to their properties. Unfortunately, due to the road layout of the area, and the number of incredibly large driveway entrances etc, school parking would spread to many roads around the area, and a considerable walk from the school, across some very busy roads! Definitely not good for child safety!
The yellow lines should have been removed when the 'road block' was created.
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PokesdownMark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Narwhal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MCAME1989[/bold] wrote: What these camera cars do recognise is that there is a difference in parking for a long time and stopping for two minutes![/p][/quote]It does not matter if it is only for 20 seconds, that is long enough for a child to loose its life :([/p][/quote]I hope the driver keeps his eyes out for children crossing the road. If the camera car hit a child that would be a terrible irony. Thread annoys me greatly. It is not rocket science. The camera car is simply not able to distinguish between parking, stopping and waiting. These are three different things. There are laws for each one. Each has a combination of road markings and signage. The camera can only reliably detect a stopped vehicle where there should not be a stopped vehicle. Here are the councils own words: QUOTE Bournemouth Borough Council only use the camera car in location such as bus stops, pedestrian crossings, school entranceway zigzags and also where double yellow lines and kerb markings advising loading/unloading is prohibited. ENDQUOTE The tribunal would not have found in this ladies favour if the council had been operating the camera car in a proper and legal manner. Also here are the councils OWN WORDS (complete with typos and poor grammer) with regard for stopping where there are both DOUBLE yellow lines AND kerb marking... Double Yellow lines with kerb markings - Contravention code 02: The double yellow lines are shown along the edge of the kerb indicating that no parking is available at any time. Theere are also kerb marking along the pavement that advise a loading ban is also in force for the location. The yellow lines and kerb markings are applicable through to the boundary of the property taking in carriageway, pavement and grass verge areas. A driver is permitted to stop for the purpose of allowing a passenger to board or alight the vehicle. Disabled badge holders are not permitted to use their disabled badges in this location This is from: http://www.bournemou th.gov.uk/StreetsTra nsport/Parking/Parki ng-Restrictions-Cont raventions/HowNotToB eIssuedWithAPenaltyC hargeNoticeOnStreet. aspx So - there - a driver IS PERMITTED TO STOP FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A PASSENGER TO BOARD OR ALIGHT THE VEHICLE. I wish you could highlight text without resorting to caps :-)[/p][/quote]The guideline of the law may allow a passenger/s to board or alight a vehicle but it certainly doesn't mean turning up at 3pm and waiting till 3:15, using the time standing around chatting to the other mums about who's having an affair with who or eyeing up someone else's husband while their waiting for their kids to come out of the school?[/p][/quote]BarrHumbug - you seem like you know the area well, and that you may be another parent of a child at the school?? As another post states, I am very easy to spot, so please feel free to come over and chat to me about all this whilst we wait in the incredibly large, safe, area for the children to come out of school safely - despite all the cars covering every single yellow line in the area :)[/p][/quote]"Despite all the cars covering every single yellow line in the area " Come on Poole council get every spare traffic warden available en masse down to Windsor road tomorrow and ticket every illegally parked car that should easily cover the lost £210[/p][/quote]My point exactly! If this was really about child safety, the issue of cars parking on the single yellow lines in the area would have been targeted like this a long time ago. The use of the camera car is purely to generate income on a regular basis! However, once the cars no longer stop on the single yellow lines, there will be nowhere left other than in front of peoples driveways etc - which are all currently left clear (rightly so) to enable residents to gain access to their properties. Unfortunately, due to the road layout of the area, and the number of incredibly large driveway entrances etc, school parking would spread to many roads around the area, and a considerable walk from the school, across some very busy roads! Definitely not good for child safety! The yellow lines should have been removed when the 'road block' was created. Jo Green

11:43pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Jo Green says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
Jo Green wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote:
Jo Green wrote:
The first adjudicator decision was in May 2013
The second, and final, decision was in September 2013
As far as I can tell, the Council have made no changes to the area, or their procedures, since the Adjudicators very clear rulings.
The Mobile Camera Car is still operating in this area, and issuing tickets, knowing full well that they are not enforceable!
If their objective is to protect the children from danger, they can clearly see every day that their current method is not working, yet they make no changes!
They just keep sending the car around in order to generate more revenue.
The only difference now, is that they are obtaining personal data from the DVLA, on the grounds that they claim to have evidence of a parking contravention. They are fully aware that they have no such evidence, so, in my view that is a serious breach of the Data Protection Act!

These tickets drop through your letter box around 2 weeks after the so called evidence has been gathered. So the Council obviously do not think informing the driver of their potential error is urgent at all.
I fail to see how they believe acting in this way is having any effect on the safety of the children!
Nor is the fact that the restricted time zone has been set as between the hours of 2pm and 4pm – school kicks out at 3.20pm, and after school clubs come out between 4pm and 5pm. What about the safety of the children between 4pm and 5pm? Which children are they protecting from 2pm to 3pm?

I was not parked on a zig zag, or on double yellow lines.
The camera car recorded me as being on a single yellow line on Windsor Road (although at the time I was actually Kimberley Road!!!). A yellow line that was painted on the road before the entire end of Windsor road was effectively blocked off to all traffic by constructing an island in the road, which provides a huge space for children to exit the school safely.
There are in fact NO zig zag lines in the area at all!

I agree whole heartedly that the safety of children is paramount, and if these restrictions are truly there for that purpose, the Council should be actively trying to enforce the restrictions by having a pedestrian officer on site.

It’s interesting that so many people are willing to make abusive comments about me, accuse me of all sorts of parking contraventions I have never committed, and those I have been cleared of committing!
Why is it that people see fit to accuse me of breaking the law, when the adjudicators rulings have cleared me of any wrong doing, and stated that the council are in fact the ones in the wrong?!?!

It would seem the real issues with this case have been missed by many people – maybe they just read the headline? Or looked at the colour of my hair and made assumptions about me? I don’t know really, but I will be making many of the case documents available to anyone who wants to see them. I will let you all know how, and when, as soon as I’ve sorted a suitable platform for doing so.
The parking restrictions in Windsor road are as follows

NO PARKING 8 am - 10 am &amp; 2 pm - 4 pm 31 August till 23 July
These restrictions also prevent loading and unloading ,

So what part of you where illegally parked do you not understand ? Yes it has been proven that the parking tickets you recieved where not issued correctly ,NO IFS NO BUTS THE FACT OF THE MATTER REMAINS YOU WHERE STILL ILLEGALLY PARKED AND IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE ABOVE PARKING RESTRICTIONS
It would seem that the fact I was cleared of being illegally parked, is the part some people are having difficulties understanding!
You, and others, shouting at me, calling me names, wishing harm to my children etc etc is not going to change that fact.
If I have read your summary correctly You where cleared on a technicality due to the tickets not being enforceable DUE to the nature that the evidence and your personal details where presented ,you have NOT been cleared of illegal parking there is a difference ! If a traffic warden had issued you a parking ticket for contravening the parking restrictions THE TICKET WOULD HAVE BEEN ENFORCEABLE
If someone was parked contravening the parking restrictions, and a traffic warden issued them with a parking ticket, of course it would be enforceable!
It would have been issued within the regulations and guidelines - it would only happen once - the claim of the restrictions being there for the safety of the children would be more credible etc etc
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: The first adjudicator decision was in May 2013 The second, and final, decision was in September 2013 As far as I can tell, the Council have made no changes to the area, or their procedures, since the Adjudicators very clear rulings. The Mobile Camera Car is still operating in this area, and issuing tickets, knowing full well that they are not enforceable! If their objective is to protect the children from danger, they can clearly see every day that their current method is not working, yet they make no changes! They just keep sending the car around in order to generate more revenue. The only difference now, is that they are obtaining personal data from the DVLA, on the grounds that they claim to have evidence of a parking contravention. They are fully aware that they have no such evidence, so, in my view that is a serious breach of the Data Protection Act! These tickets drop through your letter box around 2 weeks after the so called evidence has been gathered. So the Council obviously do not think informing the driver of their potential error is urgent at all. I fail to see how they believe acting in this way is having any effect on the safety of the children! Nor is the fact that the restricted time zone has been set as between the hours of 2pm and 4pm – school kicks out at 3.20pm, and after school clubs come out between 4pm and 5pm. What about the safety of the children between 4pm and 5pm? Which children are they protecting from 2pm to 3pm? I was not parked on a zig zag, or on double yellow lines. The camera car recorded me as being on a single yellow line on Windsor Road (although at the time I was actually Kimberley Road!!!). A yellow line that was painted on the road before the entire end of Windsor road was effectively blocked off to all traffic by constructing an island in the road, which provides a huge space for children to exit the school safely. There are in fact NO zig zag lines in the area at all! I agree whole heartedly that the safety of children is paramount, and if these restrictions are truly there for that purpose, the Council should be actively trying to enforce the restrictions by having a pedestrian officer on site. It’s interesting that so many people are willing to make abusive comments about me, accuse me of all sorts of parking contraventions I have never committed, and those I have been cleared of committing! Why is it that people see fit to accuse me of breaking the law, when the adjudicators rulings have cleared me of any wrong doing, and stated that the council are in fact the ones in the wrong?!?! It would seem the real issues with this case have been missed by many people – maybe they just read the headline? Or looked at the colour of my hair and made assumptions about me? I don’t know really, but I will be making many of the case documents available to anyone who wants to see them. I will let you all know how, and when, as soon as I’ve sorted a suitable platform for doing so.[/p][/quote]The parking restrictions in Windsor road are as follows NO PARKING 8 am - 10 am & 2 pm - 4 pm 31 August till 23 July These restrictions also prevent loading and unloading , So what part of you where illegally parked do you not understand ? Yes it has been proven that the parking tickets you recieved where not issued correctly ,NO IFS NO BUTS THE FACT OF THE MATTER REMAINS YOU WHERE STILL ILLEGALLY PARKED AND IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE ABOVE PARKING RESTRICTIONS[/p][/quote]It would seem that the fact I was cleared of being illegally parked, is the part some people are having difficulties understanding! You, and others, shouting at me, calling me names, wishing harm to my children etc etc is not going to change that fact.[/p][/quote]If I have read your summary correctly You where cleared on a technicality due to the tickets not being enforceable DUE to the nature that the evidence and your personal details where presented ,you have NOT been cleared of illegal parking there is a difference ! If a traffic warden had issued you a parking ticket for contravening the parking restrictions THE TICKET WOULD HAVE BEEN ENFORCEABLE[/p][/quote]If someone was parked contravening the parking restrictions, and a traffic warden issued them with a parking ticket, of course it would be enforceable! It would have been issued within the regulations and guidelines - it would only happen once - the claim of the restrictions being there for the safety of the children would be more credible etc etc Jo Green

12:12am Wed 4 Dec 13

ashleycross says...

What does she want the council to do-tattoo the Highway Code to her head to she can see it in the mirror every day and perhaps get round to reading it? My son is at this school and I have only been able to let him walk to school on his own since the video cars were brought in. With his older brothers I always walked him to school because of idiots like this woman parking dangerously. I see some child hating judge has let her off. Very bad news for children throughout Poole.
And Daily Echo you should be ashamed of yourselves for writing this article as if she is some kind of freedom fighting hero instead of the irresponsible idiot that she is.
What does she want the council to do-tattoo the Highway Code to her head to she can see it in the mirror every day and perhaps get round to reading it? My son is at this school and I have only been able to let him walk to school on his own since the video cars were brought in. With his older brothers I always walked him to school because of idiots like this woman parking dangerously. I see some child hating judge has let her off. Very bad news for children throughout Poole. And Daily Echo you should be ashamed of yourselves for writing this article as if she is some kind of freedom fighting hero instead of the irresponsible idiot that she is. ashleycross

12:27am Wed 4 Dec 13

Jo Green says...

ashleycross wrote:
What does she want the council to do-tattoo the Highway Code to her head to she can see it in the mirror every day and perhaps get round to reading it? My son is at this school and I have only been able to let him walk to school on his own since the video cars were brought in. With his older brothers I always walked him to school because of idiots like this woman parking dangerously. I see some child hating judge has let her off. Very bad news for children throughout Poole.
And Daily Echo you should be ashamed of yourselves for writing this article as if she is some kind of freedom fighting hero instead of the irresponsible idiot that she is.
The camera car has made no difference to the number of cars stopping on the yellow lines at all!
However, I'm stunned that it has not yet occurred to anybody that, whilst this article will almost certainly enable people that have already received tickets to get them quashed, it should definitely have a positive effect on how the council deals with vehicle issues around schools from here on in!
They will hopefully now be forced to properly assess any real dangers posed to children, remove restrictions that cause more problems than they solve, and then use their resources properly to actively enforce the restrictions that really make a difference - and enforce them legally!
[quote][p][bold]ashleycross[/bold] wrote: What does she want the council to do-tattoo the Highway Code to her head to she can see it in the mirror every day and perhaps get round to reading it? My son is at this school and I have only been able to let him walk to school on his own since the video cars were brought in. With his older brothers I always walked him to school because of idiots like this woman parking dangerously. I see some child hating judge has let her off. Very bad news for children throughout Poole. And Daily Echo you should be ashamed of yourselves for writing this article as if she is some kind of freedom fighting hero instead of the irresponsible idiot that she is.[/p][/quote]The camera car has made no difference to the number of cars stopping on the yellow lines at all! However, I'm stunned that it has not yet occurred to anybody that, whilst this article will almost certainly enable people that have already received tickets to get them quashed, it should definitely have a positive effect on how the council deals with vehicle issues around schools from here on in! They will hopefully now be forced to properly assess any real dangers posed to children, remove restrictions that cause more problems than they solve, and then use their resources properly to actively enforce the restrictions that really make a difference - and enforce them legally! Jo Green

6:18am Wed 4 Dec 13

poolequarter says...

Jo Green wrote:
ashleycross wrote:
What does she want the council to do-tattoo the Highway Code to her head to she can see it in the mirror every day and perhaps get round to reading it? My son is at this school and I have only been able to let him walk to school on his own since the video cars were brought in. With his older brothers I always walked him to school because of idiots like this woman parking dangerously. I see some child hating judge has let her off. Very bad news for children throughout Poole.
And Daily Echo you should be ashamed of yourselves for writing this article as if she is some kind of freedom fighting hero instead of the irresponsible idiot that she is.
The camera car has made no difference to the number of cars stopping on the yellow lines at all!
However, I'm stunned that it has not yet occurred to anybody that, whilst this article will almost certainly enable people that have already received tickets to get them quashed, it should definitely have a positive effect on how the council deals with vehicle issues around schools from here on in!
They will hopefully now be forced to properly assess any real dangers posed to children, remove restrictions that cause more problems than they solve, and then use their resources properly to actively enforce the restrictions that really make a difference - and enforce them legally!
This article should remind drivers to stop/park safely and within the boundaries of the law NOT Jo Green style ..... park where I think it is OK to do so in the name of being a lazy selfish cow!
[quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ashleycross[/bold] wrote: What does she want the council to do-tattoo the Highway Code to her head to she can see it in the mirror every day and perhaps get round to reading it? My son is at this school and I have only been able to let him walk to school on his own since the video cars were brought in. With his older brothers I always walked him to school because of idiots like this woman parking dangerously. I see some child hating judge has let her off. Very bad news for children throughout Poole. And Daily Echo you should be ashamed of yourselves for writing this article as if she is some kind of freedom fighting hero instead of the irresponsible idiot that she is.[/p][/quote]The camera car has made no difference to the number of cars stopping on the yellow lines at all! However, I'm stunned that it has not yet occurred to anybody that, whilst this article will almost certainly enable people that have already received tickets to get them quashed, it should definitely have a positive effect on how the council deals with vehicle issues around schools from here on in! They will hopefully now be forced to properly assess any real dangers posed to children, remove restrictions that cause more problems than they solve, and then use their resources properly to actively enforce the restrictions that really make a difference - and enforce them legally![/p][/quote]This article should remind drivers to stop/park safely and within the boundaries of the law NOT Jo Green style ..... park where I think it is OK to do so in the name of being a lazy selfish cow! poolequarter

7:01am Wed 4 Dec 13

DUCKFEEDER says...

looked at the area,it is only a technicality that allowed you not to pay these fines,if you had been ticketed by a traffic warden you would not of had a legal leg to stand on,STOP BEING SO SELFISH,PARK LEGALLY.
looked at the area,it is only a technicality that allowed you not to pay these fines,if you had been ticketed by a traffic warden you would not of had a legal leg to stand on,STOP BEING SO SELFISH,PARK LEGALLY. DUCKFEEDER

7:32am Wed 4 Dec 13

alasdair1967 says...

Jo Green wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote:
Jo Green wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
PokesdownMark wrote:
Narwhal wrote:
MCAME1989 wrote:
What these camera cars do recognise is that there is a difference in parking for a long time and stopping for two minutes!
It does not matter if it is only for 20 seconds, that is long enough for a child to loose its life :(
I hope the driver keeps his eyes out for children crossing the road. If the camera car hit a child that would be a terrible irony.

Thread annoys me greatly. It is not rocket science. The camera car is simply not able to distinguish between parking, stopping and waiting. These are three different things. There are laws for each one. Each has a combination of road markings and signage. The camera can only reliably detect a stopped vehicle where there should not be a stopped vehicle. Here are the councils own words:

QUOTE
Bournemouth Borough Council only use the camera car in location such as bus stops, pedestrian crossings, school entranceway zigzags and also where double yellow lines and kerb markings advising loading/unloading is prohibited.
ENDQUOTE

The tribunal would not have found in this ladies favour if the council had been operating the camera car in a proper and legal manner.

Also here are the councils OWN WORDS (complete with typos and poor grammer) with regard for stopping where there are both DOUBLE yellow lines AND kerb marking...

Double Yellow lines with kerb markings - Contravention code 02:
The double yellow lines are shown along the edge of the kerb indicating that no parking is available at any time. Theere are also kerb marking along the pavement that advise a loading ban is also in force for the location.
The yellow lines and kerb markings are applicable through to the boundary of the property taking in carriageway, pavement and grass verge areas.
A driver is permitted to stop for the purpose of allowing a passenger to board or alight the vehicle.
Disabled badge holders are not permitted to use their disabled badges in this location

This is from: http://www.bournemou





th.gov.uk/StreetsTra





nsport/Parking/Parki





ng-Restrictions-Cont





raventions/HowNotToB





eIssuedWithAPenaltyC





hargeNoticeOnStreet.





aspx

So - there - a driver IS PERMITTED TO STOP FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A PASSENGER TO BOARD OR ALIGHT THE VEHICLE.



I wish you could highlight text without resorting to caps :-)
The guideline of the law may allow a passenger/s to board or alight a vehicle but it certainly doesn't mean turning up at 3pm and waiting till 3:15, using the time standing around chatting to the other mums about who's having an affair with who or eyeing up someone else's husband while their waiting for their kids to come out of the school?
BarrHumbug - you seem like you know the area well, and that you may be another parent of a child at the school?? As another post states, I am very easy to spot, so please feel free to come over and chat to me about all this whilst we wait in the incredibly large, safe, area for the children to come out of school safely - despite all the cars covering every single yellow line in the area :)
&quot;Despite all the cars covering every single yellow line in the area "

Come on Poole council get every spare traffic warden available en masse down to Windsor road tomorrow and ticket every illegally parked car that should easily cover the lost £210
My point exactly!
If this was really about child safety, the issue of cars parking on the single yellow lines in the area would have been targeted like this a long time ago.
The use of the camera car is purely to generate income on a regular basis!
However, once the cars no longer stop on the single yellow lines, there will be nowhere left other than in front of peoples driveways etc - which are all currently left clear (rightly so) to enable residents to gain access to their properties. Unfortunately, due to the road layout of the area, and the number of incredibly large driveway entrances etc, school parking would spread to many roads around the area, and a considerable walk from the school, across some very busy roads! Definitely not good for child safety!
The yellow lines should have been removed when the 'road block' was created.
The use of the camera car is purely to generate income on a regular basis

Exactly because they know full well ignorant people like you and all the others that think they have a god given right to park where they like during the school run will be there regardless ,as I have said plug the loop hole put the signage up stating that the camera car is in operation so no one else can have the opertunity to get away with the fine based on technicalities,not just around your school but around all schools in the borough .
[quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PokesdownMark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Narwhal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MCAME1989[/bold] wrote: What these camera cars do recognise is that there is a difference in parking for a long time and stopping for two minutes![/p][/quote]It does not matter if it is only for 20 seconds, that is long enough for a child to loose its life :([/p][/quote]I hope the driver keeps his eyes out for children crossing the road. If the camera car hit a child that would be a terrible irony. Thread annoys me greatly. It is not rocket science. The camera car is simply not able to distinguish between parking, stopping and waiting. These are three different things. There are laws for each one. Each has a combination of road markings and signage. The camera can only reliably detect a stopped vehicle where there should not be a stopped vehicle. Here are the councils own words: QUOTE Bournemouth Borough Council only use the camera car in location such as bus stops, pedestrian crossings, school entranceway zigzags and also where double yellow lines and kerb markings advising loading/unloading is prohibited. ENDQUOTE The tribunal would not have found in this ladies favour if the council had been operating the camera car in a proper and legal manner. Also here are the councils OWN WORDS (complete with typos and poor grammer) with regard for stopping where there are both DOUBLE yellow lines AND kerb marking... Double Yellow lines with kerb markings - Contravention code 02: The double yellow lines are shown along the edge of the kerb indicating that no parking is available at any time. Theere are also kerb marking along the pavement that advise a loading ban is also in force for the location. The yellow lines and kerb markings are applicable through to the boundary of the property taking in carriageway, pavement and grass verge areas. A driver is permitted to stop for the purpose of allowing a passenger to board or alight the vehicle. Disabled badge holders are not permitted to use their disabled badges in this location This is from: http://www.bournemou th.gov.uk/StreetsTra nsport/Parking/Parki ng-Restrictions-Cont raventions/HowNotToB eIssuedWithAPenaltyC hargeNoticeOnStreet. aspx So - there - a driver IS PERMITTED TO STOP FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A PASSENGER TO BOARD OR ALIGHT THE VEHICLE. I wish you could highlight text without resorting to caps :-)[/p][/quote]The guideline of the law may allow a passenger/s to board or alight a vehicle but it certainly doesn't mean turning up at 3pm and waiting till 3:15, using the time standing around chatting to the other mums about who's having an affair with who or eyeing up someone else's husband while their waiting for their kids to come out of the school?[/p][/quote]BarrHumbug - you seem like you know the area well, and that you may be another parent of a child at the school?? As another post states, I am very easy to spot, so please feel free to come over and chat to me about all this whilst we wait in the incredibly large, safe, area for the children to come out of school safely - despite all the cars covering every single yellow line in the area :)[/p][/quote]"Despite all the cars covering every single yellow line in the area " Come on Poole council get every spare traffic warden available en masse down to Windsor road tomorrow and ticket every illegally parked car that should easily cover the lost £210[/p][/quote]My point exactly! If this was really about child safety, the issue of cars parking on the single yellow lines in the area would have been targeted like this a long time ago. The use of the camera car is purely to generate income on a regular basis! However, once the cars no longer stop on the single yellow lines, there will be nowhere left other than in front of peoples driveways etc - which are all currently left clear (rightly so) to enable residents to gain access to their properties. Unfortunately, due to the road layout of the area, and the number of incredibly large driveway entrances etc, school parking would spread to many roads around the area, and a considerable walk from the school, across some very busy roads! Definitely not good for child safety! The yellow lines should have been removed when the 'road block' was created.[/p][/quote]The use of the camera car is purely to generate income on a regular basis Exactly because they know full well ignorant people like you and all the others that think they have a god given right to park where they like during the school run will be there regardless ,as I have said plug the loop hole put the signage up stating that the camera car is in operation so no one else can have the opertunity to get away with the fine based on technicalities,not just around your school but around all schools in the borough . alasdair1967

9:53am Wed 4 Dec 13

lilliputian says...

pete woodley wrote:
nickynoodah wrote:
Looking beautiful and turning heads is a common natural desire for women
Jo is a stunner
please echo
lets have more like Jo
thankyou
Try &quot;specsavers"
not even Specsavers could alter the impression that this is an ignorant, selfish, lazy woman who has managed (on a technicality) to evade the consequences of her self-centred actions.
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: Looking beautiful and turning heads is a common natural desire for women Jo is a stunner please echo lets have more like Jo thankyou[/p][/quote]Try "specsavers"[/p][/quote]not even Specsavers could alter the impression that this is an ignorant, selfish, lazy woman who has managed (on a technicality) to evade the consequences of her self-centred actions. lilliputian

9:58am Wed 4 Dec 13

live-and-let-live says...

well done Jo for fighting, and winning your case. the council were obviously wrong otherwise you wouldnt have won so i dont understand what all the bleating is about here.
perhaps councils would consider trying to make things easier for parents picking up their children instead of the obstacle race imposed on them every day. some people have children at different schools. it must be very difficult to arrange collection every day. am not a parent .i dont have to collect children from school but i can see how much of a struggle it can be.
well done Jo for fighting, and winning your case. the council were obviously wrong otherwise you wouldnt have won so i dont understand what all the bleating is about here. perhaps councils would consider trying to make things easier for parents picking up their children instead of the obstacle race imposed on them every day. some people have children at different schools. it must be very difficult to arrange collection every day. am not a parent .i dont have to collect children from school but i can see how much of a struggle it can be. live-and-let-live

10:10am Wed 4 Dec 13

retry69 says...

pete woodley wrote:
Jo,you were cleared on a technicality not because you were innocent,were you not.Ther are alot like you outside Hillview school.
You actually make a very good point about Hillview,its probably similar at other schools but on the occasions when I have picked children up from there I am amazed that parking is allowed along the road directly in front of the school.Those parked there legally are still an obstacle to others as adults and children have to cross between vehicles some which are large vans.Of course the alternatives are walk further or yellow lines neither of which applied in this case.
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: Jo,you were cleared on a technicality not because you were innocent,were you not.Ther are alot like you outside Hillview school.[/p][/quote]You actually make a very good point about Hillview,its probably similar at other schools but on the occasions when I have picked children up from there I am amazed that parking is allowed along the road directly in front of the school.Those parked there legally are still an obstacle to others as adults and children have to cross between vehicles some which are large vans.Of course the alternatives are walk further or yellow lines neither of which applied in this case. retry69

10:41am Wed 4 Dec 13

JustForPoole says...

Everyone will have 15 minutes of fame ????? This lazy wench has had two bl**dy days ... and that`s for being in the WRONG and getting off on a technicality!!! You know you did LAZY woman so stop ****, get on with life and try to stop/park legally and safely in future!!!.
Everyone will have 15 minutes of fame ????? This lazy wench has had two bl**dy days ... and that`s for being in the WRONG and getting off on a technicality!!! You know you did LAZY woman so stop ****, get on with life and try to stop/park legally and safely in future!!!. JustForPoole

11:04am Wed 4 Dec 13

madras says...

manyogie wrote:
On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then?
Score Jo !
Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`
Does it say she parked on a zig zag?
In The Times today it says she 'dropped off' on a single yellow line
And she argued that:
- dropping off on a single yellow is not an offence
- there were no notices for the camera cars
And was found in her favour on BOTH counts

So there is nothing to suggest she parked illegally - and apart from the 'technicality' of the lack of signs, the camera car muppets would, it would appear, need to learn their highway code before they continue ticketing people when no offence has been comitted
[quote][p][bold]manyogie[/bold] wrote: On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then? Score Jo ! Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`[/p][/quote]Does it say she parked on a zig zag? In The Times today it says she 'dropped off' on a single yellow line And she argued that: - dropping off on a single yellow is not an offence - there were no notices for the camera cars And was found in her favour on BOTH counts So there is nothing to suggest she parked illegally - and apart from the 'technicality' of the lack of signs, the camera car muppets would, it would appear, need to learn their highway code before they continue ticketing people when no offence has been comitted madras

11:14am Wed 4 Dec 13

retry69 says...

Its quite obvious from the comments that this article was nothing to do with creating awareness of parking around schools but more about another poor targeted motorist and one-upmanship/womans
hip against the council and camera cars.Also it is plain to read that most of the other motorists would not have stopped at all where this person did.Lessons learnt ? You can be inconsiderate to others on a public highway and go unpunished and put a finger up at the council but hopefully these people are few and very far between especially near schools
Its quite obvious from the comments that this article was nothing to do with creating awareness of parking around schools but more about another poor targeted motorist and one-upmanship/womans hip against the council and camera cars.Also it is plain to read that most of the other motorists would not have stopped at all where this person did.Lessons learnt ? You can be inconsiderate to others on a public highway and go unpunished and put a finger up at the council but hopefully these people are few and very far between especially near schools retry69

11:16am Wed 4 Dec 13

retry69 says...

The womans hip was unintentional funny but a innocent mistake :)
The womans hip was unintentional funny but a innocent mistake :) retry69

12:07pm Wed 4 Dec 13

apm1954 says...

Jo Green wrote:
manyogie wrote:
On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then?
Score Jo !
Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`
stopped on single yellow line where absolutely no danger posed to anyone, not zigzag
guilty
[quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]manyogie[/bold] wrote: On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then? Score Jo ! Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`[/p][/quote]stopped on single yellow line where absolutely no danger posed to anyone, not zigzag[/p][/quote]guilty apm1954

5:36pm Wed 4 Dec 13

ashleycross says...

live-and-let-live wrote:
well done Jo for fighting, and winning your case. the council were obviously wrong otherwise you wouldnt have won so i dont understand what all the bleating is about here.
perhaps councils would consider trying to make things easier for parents picking up their children instead of the obstacle race imposed on them every day. some people have children at different schools. it must be very difficult to arrange collection every day. am not a parent .i dont have to collect children from school but i can see how much of a struggle it can be.
It is only a struggle because of people who think they are above the law which in this case she is
[quote][p][bold]live-and-let-live[/bold] wrote: well done Jo for fighting, and winning your case. the council were obviously wrong otherwise you wouldnt have won so i dont understand what all the bleating is about here. perhaps councils would consider trying to make things easier for parents picking up their children instead of the obstacle race imposed on them every day. some people have children at different schools. it must be very difficult to arrange collection every day. am not a parent .i dont have to collect children from school but i can see how much of a struggle it can be.[/p][/quote]It is only a struggle because of people who think they are above the law which in this case she is ashleycross

6:14pm Wed 4 Dec 13

nickynoodah says...

Being a popular well known womaniser residing in Bere
I can spot a pretty lady from half a mile away

To all the lovely girls I've met before xx
Being a popular well known womaniser residing in Bere I can spot a pretty lady from half a mile away To all the lovely girls I've met before xx nickynoodah

8:13pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Lord Spring says...

From what I read it sounds to me as there is only one person in this world.
From what I read it sounds to me as there is only one person in this world. Lord Spring

8:18pm Wed 4 Dec 13

carrrob says...

Lol
Lol carrrob

8:21pm Wed 4 Dec 13

alyce says...

Lot of traffic wardens commenting on this site methinks :)
Lot of traffic wardens commenting on this site methinks :) alyce

8:25pm Wed 4 Dec 13

carrrob says...

How much has this woman cost us in council employees wages due to her persistantly breaking parking regulations when she does find time take a look in the mirror she will realise her hair has turned a strange colour !
How much has this woman cost us in council employees wages due to her persistantly breaking parking regulations when she does find time take a look in the mirror she will realise her hair has turned a strange colour ! carrrob

8:29pm Wed 4 Dec 13

retry69 says...

Lord Spring wrote:
From what I read it sounds to me as there is only one person in this world.
Up late mlud ? :)
[quote][p][bold]Lord Spring[/bold] wrote: From what I read it sounds to me as there is only one person in this world.[/p][/quote]Up late mlud ? :) retry69

9:21pm Wed 4 Dec 13

ashleycross says...

Jo Green wrote:
ashleycross wrote:
What does she want the council to do-tattoo the Highway Code to her head to she can see it in the mirror every day and perhaps get round to reading it? My son is at this school and I have only been able to let him walk to school on his own since the video cars were brought in. With his older brothers I always walked him to school because of idiots like this woman parking dangerously. I see some child hating judge has let her off. Very bad news for children throughout Poole.
And Daily Echo you should be ashamed of yourselves for writing this article as if she is some kind of freedom fighting hero instead of the irresponsible idiot that she is.
The camera car has made no difference to the number of cars stopping on the yellow lines at all!
However, I'm stunned that it has not yet occurred to anybody that, whilst this article will almost certainly enable people that have already received tickets to get them quashed, it should definitely have a positive effect on how the council deals with vehicle issues around schools from here on in!
They will hopefully now be forced to properly assess any real dangers posed to children, remove restrictions that cause more problems than they solve, and then use their resources properly to actively enforce the restrictions that really make a difference - and enforce them legally!
The camera car has made a huge difference to the number of people stopping illegally outside this school. I'm sorry to see that your hair dye must be either affecting your memory or causing your imagination to work overtime.
[quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ashleycross[/bold] wrote: What does she want the council to do-tattoo the Highway Code to her head to she can see it in the mirror every day and perhaps get round to reading it? My son is at this school and I have only been able to let him walk to school on his own since the video cars were brought in. With his older brothers I always walked him to school because of idiots like this woman parking dangerously. I see some child hating judge has let her off. Very bad news for children throughout Poole. And Daily Echo you should be ashamed of yourselves for writing this article as if she is some kind of freedom fighting hero instead of the irresponsible idiot that she is.[/p][/quote]The camera car has made no difference to the number of cars stopping on the yellow lines at all! However, I'm stunned that it has not yet occurred to anybody that, whilst this article will almost certainly enable people that have already received tickets to get them quashed, it should definitely have a positive effect on how the council deals with vehicle issues around schools from here on in! They will hopefully now be forced to properly assess any real dangers posed to children, remove restrictions that cause more problems than they solve, and then use their resources properly to actively enforce the restrictions that really make a difference - and enforce them legally![/p][/quote]The camera car has made a huge difference to the number of people stopping illegally outside this school. I'm sorry to see that your hair dye must be either affecting your memory or causing your imagination to work overtime. ashleycross

9:28pm Wed 4 Dec 13

ashleycross says...

Please, parents at this entrance to the school, photograph her parking on your phones and post them to Poole Borough on their website to get them to put up what ever notices are needed and keep sending the car. She clearly has no intention whatsoever of taking any notice of any road markings around the school.
Please, parents at this entrance to the school, photograph her parking on your phones and post them to Poole Borough on their website to get them to put up what ever notices are needed and keep sending the car. She clearly has no intention whatsoever of taking any notice of any road markings around the school. ashleycross

2:00pm Thu 5 Dec 13

Caz1950 says...

It has now gone national on BBC so hopefully other people who have been ticketed by the camera car unlawfully will dispute charges. Good on you Jo hopefully the camera cars will become a thing of the past, and they will go back to the human touch. At least you can talk to a traffic warden.
It has now gone national on BBC so hopefully other people who have been ticketed by the camera car unlawfully will dispute charges. Good on you Jo hopefully the camera cars will become a thing of the past, and they will go back to the human touch. At least you can talk to a traffic warden. Caz1950

8:38pm Thu 5 Dec 13

motsie says...

At least she proved she was to bone idol to park where it would be less dangerous for others. So now there's an accident waiting to happen.
At least she proved she was to bone idol to park where it would be less dangerous for others. So now there's an accident waiting to happen. motsie

9:34pm Thu 5 Dec 13

Jo Green says...

motsie wrote:
At least she proved she was to bone idol to park where it would be less dangerous for others. So now there's an accident waiting to happen.
Not bone idle at all - I have 2 children, the other was at Oakdale at the time. Baden Powell finished at 3.30, and Oakdale at 3.25, but I had to do the Baden Powell run first so as not to leave my 8yr old hanging around outside school on her own. To get to Oakdale as quickly as possible, I had to park as close as possible to Baden Powell.
I have never, and will never, knowingly park illegally. Judge me as much as you like for parking there once, but the fact remains that on that first occasion, had I been issued with a ticket, or given a warning, by a Traffic Warden on foot, it would not have happened again.
As for endangering children............
........... they claim the enforcements are for child safety, yet using the camera car they effectively drove past me thinking"oh look, she's putting children in danger - let's leave her there, and give her the opportunity to park there 20 times, repeatedly putting children in danger, before we tell her about it!" ........ Oh I think not!
And, what about the cars parked at an angle where the camera couldn't pick up the registration plates? No attempt to inform them they were also in the wrong at all!
Are the council using parents as cash machines? In my opinion, Definitely! If parking there truly put children in danger they would actually do something to make a difference!
Had the Tribunal thought I was putting anybody in danger, they could have overruled all the regulations broken by the council, and upheld the fines - but they didn't!
[quote][p][bold]motsie[/bold] wrote: At least she proved she was to bone idol to park where it would be less dangerous for others. So now there's an accident waiting to happen.[/p][/quote]Not bone idle at all - I have 2 children, the other was at Oakdale at the time. Baden Powell finished at 3.30, and Oakdale at 3.25, but I had to do the Baden Powell run first so as not to leave my 8yr old hanging around outside school on her own. To get to Oakdale as quickly as possible, I had to park as close as possible to Baden Powell. I have never, and will never, knowingly park illegally. Judge me as much as you like for parking there once, but the fact remains that on that first occasion, had I been issued with a ticket, or given a warning, by a Traffic Warden on foot, it would not have happened again. As for endangering children............ ........... they claim the enforcements are for child safety, yet using the camera car they effectively drove past me thinking"oh look, she's putting children in danger - let's leave her there, and give her the opportunity to park there 20 times, repeatedly putting children in danger, before we tell her about it!" ........ Oh I think not! And, what about the cars parked at an angle where the camera couldn't pick up the registration plates? No attempt to inform them they were also in the wrong at all! Are the council using parents as cash machines? In my opinion, Definitely! If parking there truly put children in danger they would actually do something to make a difference! Had the Tribunal thought I was putting anybody in danger, they could have overruled all the regulations broken by the council, and upheld the fines - but they didn't! Jo Green

10:01am Fri 6 Dec 13

n4 says...

Jo Green wrote:
ashleycross wrote:
What does she want the council to do-tattoo the Highway Code to her head to she can see it in the mirror every day and perhaps get round to reading it? My son is at this school and I have only been able to let him walk to school on his own since the video cars were brought in. With his older brothers I always walked him to school because of idiots like this woman parking dangerously. I see some child hating judge has let her off. Very bad news for children throughout Poole.
And Daily Echo you should be ashamed of yourselves for writing this article as if she is some kind of freedom fighting hero instead of the irresponsible idiot that she is.
The camera car has made no difference to the number of cars stopping on the yellow lines at all!
However, I'm stunned that it has not yet occurred to anybody that, whilst this article will almost certainly enable people that have already received tickets to get them quashed, it should definitely have a positive effect on how the council deals with vehicle issues around schools from here on in!
They will hopefully now be forced to properly assess any real dangers posed to children, remove restrictions that cause more problems than they solve, and then use their resources properly to actively enforce the restrictions that really make a difference - and enforce them legally!
So what are you suggesting? That you were actually doing everyone a favour with you selfless act of parking illegally... So that attention would be drawn to the danger that you were causing? Have a word with yourself and stop being so selfish. You got away with this on a technicality. Well done. Aren't you big and clever.
[quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ashleycross[/bold] wrote: What does she want the council to do-tattoo the Highway Code to her head to she can see it in the mirror every day and perhaps get round to reading it? My son is at this school and I have only been able to let him walk to school on his own since the video cars were brought in. With his older brothers I always walked him to school because of idiots like this woman parking dangerously. I see some child hating judge has let her off. Very bad news for children throughout Poole. And Daily Echo you should be ashamed of yourselves for writing this article as if she is some kind of freedom fighting hero instead of the irresponsible idiot that she is.[/p][/quote]The camera car has made no difference to the number of cars stopping on the yellow lines at all! However, I'm stunned that it has not yet occurred to anybody that, whilst this article will almost certainly enable people that have already received tickets to get them quashed, it should definitely have a positive effect on how the council deals with vehicle issues around schools from here on in! They will hopefully now be forced to properly assess any real dangers posed to children, remove restrictions that cause more problems than they solve, and then use their resources properly to actively enforce the restrictions that really make a difference - and enforce them legally![/p][/quote]So what are you suggesting? That you were actually doing everyone a favour with you selfless act of parking illegally... So that attention would be drawn to the danger that you were causing? Have a word with yourself and stop being so selfish. You got away with this on a technicality. Well done. Aren't you big and clever. n4

10:37am Fri 6 Dec 13

Narwhal says...

madras wrote:
manyogie wrote: On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then? Score Jo ! Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`
Does it say she parked on a zig zag? In The Times today it says she 'dropped off' on a single yellow line And she argued that: - dropping off on a single yellow is not an offence - there were no notices for the camera cars And was found in her favour on BOTH counts So there is nothing to suggest she parked illegally - and apart from the 'technicality' of the lack of signs, the camera car muppets would, it would appear, need to learn their highway code before they continue ticketing people when no offence has been comitted
How could she be dropping off at 3pm in the afternoon, so was it perjury on her part?
[quote][p][bold]madras[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]manyogie[/bold] wrote: On the other hand, so, she parked on a zig zag, which is there to keep the curb clear and leave a clear space on the pavement where passing motorists can see if a child is likely to run out in the road instead of suddenly from behind thoughtlessly parked cars then? Score Jo ! Watch out for next weeks `victory` wherein the speeding thro the Arndale went without charge as `there`s no sign saying I cant drive thro there at 50mph`[/p][/quote]Does it say she parked on a zig zag? In The Times today it says she 'dropped off' on a single yellow line And she argued that: - dropping off on a single yellow is not an offence - there were no notices for the camera cars And was found in her favour on BOTH counts So there is nothing to suggest she parked illegally - and apart from the 'technicality' of the lack of signs, the camera car muppets would, it would appear, need to learn their highway code before they continue ticketing people when no offence has been comitted[/p][/quote]How could she be dropping off at 3pm in the afternoon, so was it perjury on her part? Narwhal

10:39am Fri 6 Dec 13

poolequarter says...

Jo Green wrote:
motsie wrote:
At least she proved she was to bone idol to park where it would be less dangerous for others. So now there's an accident waiting to happen.
Not bone idle at all - I have 2 children, the other was at Oakdale at the time. Baden Powell finished at 3.30, and Oakdale at 3.25, but I had to do the Baden Powell run first so as not to leave my 8yr old hanging around outside school on her own. To get to Oakdale as quickly as possible, I had to park as close as possible to Baden Powell.
I have never, and will never, knowingly park illegally. Judge me as much as you like for parking there once, but the fact remains that on that first occasion, had I been issued with a ticket, or given a warning, by a Traffic Warden on foot, it would not have happened again.
As for endangering children............

........... they claim the enforcements are for child safety, yet using the camera car they effectively drove past me thinking&quot;oh look, she's putting children in danger - let's leave her there, and give her the opportunity to park there 20 times, repeatedly putting children in danger, before we tell her about it!" ........ Oh I think not!
And, what about the cars parked at an angle where the camera couldn't pick up the registration plates? No attempt to inform them they were also in the wrong at all!
Are the council using parents as cash machines? In my opinion, Definitely! If parking there truly put children in danger they would actually do something to make a difference!
Had the Tribunal thought I was putting anybody in danger, they could have overruled all the regulations broken by the council, and upheld the fines - but they didn't!
So you admit that it had been a traffic warden on foot ... "it would not have happened again" ... so you admit you are guilty!!!! But as it was a camera car and you could see a loophole you would take advantage. The enforcement rules are not there for fun ... in this area they are there for child safety ... including yours. You need to sort your life out to enable you to drop your kids at school and then pick up your kids from school without the need to resort to illegal and unsafe stopping/waiting/par
king ...or just your pure laziness!!!! I sincerely hope they send a routine patrol of foot wardens after you and issue enough valid tickets for the message to get into your small limited capacity brain.
[quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]motsie[/bold] wrote: At least she proved she was to bone idol to park where it would be less dangerous for others. So now there's an accident waiting to happen.[/p][/quote]Not bone idle at all - I have 2 children, the other was at Oakdale at the time. Baden Powell finished at 3.30, and Oakdale at 3.25, but I had to do the Baden Powell run first so as not to leave my 8yr old hanging around outside school on her own. To get to Oakdale as quickly as possible, I had to park as close as possible to Baden Powell. I have never, and will never, knowingly park illegally. Judge me as much as you like for parking there once, but the fact remains that on that first occasion, had I been issued with a ticket, or given a warning, by a Traffic Warden on foot, it would not have happened again. As for endangering children............ ........... they claim the enforcements are for child safety, yet using the camera car they effectively drove past me thinking"oh look, she's putting children in danger - let's leave her there, and give her the opportunity to park there 20 times, repeatedly putting children in danger, before we tell her about it!" ........ Oh I think not! And, what about the cars parked at an angle where the camera couldn't pick up the registration plates? No attempt to inform them they were also in the wrong at all! Are the council using parents as cash machines? In my opinion, Definitely! If parking there truly put children in danger they would actually do something to make a difference! Had the Tribunal thought I was putting anybody in danger, they could have overruled all the regulations broken by the council, and upheld the fines - but they didn't![/p][/quote]So you admit that it had been a traffic warden on foot ... "it would not have happened again" ... so you admit you are guilty!!!! But as it was a camera car and you could see a loophole you would take advantage. The enforcement rules are not there for fun ... in this area they are there for child safety ... including yours. You need to sort your life out to enable you to drop your kids at school and then pick up your kids from school without the need to resort to illegal and unsafe stopping/waiting/par king ...or just your pure laziness!!!! I sincerely hope they send a routine patrol of foot wardens after you and issue enough valid tickets for the message to get into your small limited capacity brain. poolequarter

2:08pm Fri 6 Dec 13

JustForPoole says...

GUILTY as charged ... but please let me off ... I have a busy afternoon ?????
GUILTY as charged ... but please let me off ... I have a busy afternoon ????? JustForPoole

6:26pm Fri 6 Dec 13

n4 says...

Jo Green wrote:
motsie wrote:
At least she proved she was to bone idol to park where it would be less dangerous for others. So now there's an accident waiting to happen.
Not bone idle at all - I have 2 children, the other was at Oakdale at the time. Baden Powell finished at 3.30, and Oakdale at 3.25, but I had to do the Baden Powell run first so as not to leave my 8yr old hanging around outside school on her own. To get to Oakdale as quickly as possible, I had to park as close as possible to Baden Powell.
I have never, and will never, knowingly park illegally. Judge me as much as you like for parking there once, but the fact remains that on that first occasion, had I been issued with a ticket, or given a warning, by a Traffic Warden on foot, it would not have happened again.
As for endangering children............

........... they claim the enforcements are for child safety, yet using the camera car they effectively drove past me thinking&quot;oh look, she's putting children in danger - let's leave her there, and give her the opportunity to park there 20 times, repeatedly putting children in danger, before we tell her about it!" ........ Oh I think not!
And, what about the cars parked at an angle where the camera couldn't pick up the registration plates? No attempt to inform them they were also in the wrong at all!
Are the council using parents as cash machines? In my opinion, Definitely! If parking there truly put children in danger they would actually do something to make a difference!
Had the Tribunal thought I was putting anybody in danger, they could have overruled all the regulations broken by the council, and upheld the fines - but they didn't!
The bottom line is if you don't want to feel like a 'cash machine', don't part your car where you're not supposed to. Furthermore, to suggest that the Tribunal would have upheld the fines if you had broken any regulations is utterly ludicrous. It was not about the regulations, it was about the manner in which the council enforced the regulations. What they upheld was that the council were in the wrong in the way in which they enforced the regulations. It was nothing to do with your putting people in danger or not, as well you know.
[quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]motsie[/bold] wrote: At least she proved she was to bone idol to park where it would be less dangerous for others. So now there's an accident waiting to happen.[/p][/quote]Not bone idle at all - I have 2 children, the other was at Oakdale at the time. Baden Powell finished at 3.30, and Oakdale at 3.25, but I had to do the Baden Powell run first so as not to leave my 8yr old hanging around outside school on her own. To get to Oakdale as quickly as possible, I had to park as close as possible to Baden Powell. I have never, and will never, knowingly park illegally. Judge me as much as you like for parking there once, but the fact remains that on that first occasion, had I been issued with a ticket, or given a warning, by a Traffic Warden on foot, it would not have happened again. As for endangering children............ ........... they claim the enforcements are for child safety, yet using the camera car they effectively drove past me thinking"oh look, she's putting children in danger - let's leave her there, and give her the opportunity to park there 20 times, repeatedly putting children in danger, before we tell her about it!" ........ Oh I think not! And, what about the cars parked at an angle where the camera couldn't pick up the registration plates? No attempt to inform them they were also in the wrong at all! Are the council using parents as cash machines? In my opinion, Definitely! If parking there truly put children in danger they would actually do something to make a difference! Had the Tribunal thought I was putting anybody in danger, they could have overruled all the regulations broken by the council, and upheld the fines - but they didn't![/p][/quote]The bottom line is if you don't want to feel like a 'cash machine', don't part your car where you're not supposed to. Furthermore, to suggest that the Tribunal would have upheld the fines if you had broken any regulations is utterly ludicrous. It was not about the regulations, it was about the manner in which the council enforced the regulations. What they upheld was that the council were in the wrong in the way in which they enforced the regulations. It was nothing to do with your putting people in danger or not, as well you know. n4

8:34pm Fri 6 Dec 13

JustForPoole says...

n4 wrote:
Jo Green wrote:
motsie wrote:
At least she proved she was to bone idol to park where it would be less dangerous for others. So now there's an accident waiting to happen.
Not bone idle at all - I have 2 children, the other was at Oakdale at the time. Baden Powell finished at 3.30, and Oakdale at 3.25, but I had to do the Baden Powell run first so as not to leave my 8yr old hanging around outside school on her own. To get to Oakdale as quickly as possible, I had to park as close as possible to Baden Powell.
I have never, and will never, knowingly park illegally. Judge me as much as you like for parking there once, but the fact remains that on that first occasion, had I been issued with a ticket, or given a warning, by a Traffic Warden on foot, it would not have happened again.
As for endangering children............


........... they claim the enforcements are for child safety, yet using the camera car they effectively drove past me thinking&quot;oh look, she's putting children in danger - let's leave her there, and give her the opportunity to park there 20 times, repeatedly putting children in danger, before we tell her about it!" ........ Oh I think not!
And, what about the cars parked at an angle where the camera couldn't pick up the registration plates? No attempt to inform them they were also in the wrong at all!
Are the council using parents as cash machines? In my opinion, Definitely! If parking there truly put children in danger they would actually do something to make a difference!
Had the Tribunal thought I was putting anybody in danger, they could have overruled all the regulations broken by the council, and upheld the fines - but they didn't!
The bottom line is if you don't want to feel like a 'cash machine', don't part your car where you're not supposed to. Furthermore, to suggest that the Tribunal would have upheld the fines if you had broken any regulations is utterly ludicrous. It was not about the regulations, it was about the manner in which the council enforced the regulations. What they upheld was that the council were in the wrong in the way in which they enforced the regulations. It was nothing to do with your putting people in danger or not, as well you know.
Spot on n4 ... 100% correct
[quote][p][bold]n4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]motsie[/bold] wrote: At least she proved she was to bone idol to park where it would be less dangerous for others. So now there's an accident waiting to happen.[/p][/quote]Not bone idle at all - I have 2 children, the other was at Oakdale at the time. Baden Powell finished at 3.30, and Oakdale at 3.25, but I had to do the Baden Powell run first so as not to leave my 8yr old hanging around outside school on her own. To get to Oakdale as quickly as possible, I had to park as close as possible to Baden Powell. I have never, and will never, knowingly park illegally. Judge me as much as you like for parking there once, but the fact remains that on that first occasion, had I been issued with a ticket, or given a warning, by a Traffic Warden on foot, it would not have happened again. As for endangering children............ ........... they claim the enforcements are for child safety, yet using the camera car they effectively drove past me thinking"oh look, she's putting children in danger - let's leave her there, and give her the opportunity to park there 20 times, repeatedly putting children in danger, before we tell her about it!" ........ Oh I think not! And, what about the cars parked at an angle where the camera couldn't pick up the registration plates? No attempt to inform them they were also in the wrong at all! Are the council using parents as cash machines? In my opinion, Definitely! If parking there truly put children in danger they would actually do something to make a difference! Had the Tribunal thought I was putting anybody in danger, they could have overruled all the regulations broken by the council, and upheld the fines - but they didn't![/p][/quote]The bottom line is if you don't want to feel like a 'cash machine', don't part your car where you're not supposed to. Furthermore, to suggest that the Tribunal would have upheld the fines if you had broken any regulations is utterly ludicrous. It was not about the regulations, it was about the manner in which the council enforced the regulations. What they upheld was that the council were in the wrong in the way in which they enforced the regulations. It was nothing to do with your putting people in danger or not, as well you know.[/p][/quote]Spot on n4 ... 100% correct JustForPoole

10:45am Sat 7 Dec 13

Mike R-B says...

Having read "all" the above comments I can see that, ignoring the "wrongs or rights" of this incident, Jo has a brilliant brain, is tenacious, resolute in her beliefs and has a good knowledge of the legal system.
I would be glad to have her as a Barrister should I fall foul of the law.
Having read "all" the above comments I can see that, ignoring the "wrongs or rights" of this incident, Jo has a brilliant brain, is tenacious, resolute in her beliefs and has a good knowledge of the legal system. I would be glad to have her as a Barrister should I fall foul of the law. Mike R-B

5:49pm Sat 7 Dec 13

n4 says...

Mike R-B wrote:
Having read &quot;all" the above comments I can see that, ignoring the "wrongs or rights" of this incident, Jo has a brilliant brain, is tenacious, resolute in her beliefs and has a good knowledge of the legal system.
I would be glad to have her as a Barrister should I fall foul of the law.
You'll be 'going down' then... Jo does not even seem to understand why the Tribunal overturned her parking fines. Then, she has tried to make out that her motives for parking illegally were some kind of altruistic gesture... The only judge who might be convinced by this rubbish is that nice Mr Wiggs... I am not a lawyer and even I can see through her argument. Tenacious and resolute... I would say Pig headed and stubborn. Oh... and fundamentally wrong.
[quote][p][bold]Mike R-B[/bold] wrote: Having read "all" the above comments I can see that, ignoring the "wrongs or rights" of this incident, Jo has a brilliant brain, is tenacious, resolute in her beliefs and has a good knowledge of the legal system. I would be glad to have her as a Barrister should I fall foul of the law.[/p][/quote]You'll be 'going down' then... Jo does not even seem to understand why the Tribunal overturned her parking fines. Then, she has tried to make out that her motives for parking illegally were some kind of altruistic gesture... The only judge who might be convinced by this rubbish is that nice Mr Wiggs... I am not a lawyer and even I can see through her argument. Tenacious and resolute... I would say Pig headed and stubborn. Oh... and fundamentally wrong. n4

8:34pm Sat 7 Dec 13

Neil's off to France says...

I stupidly parked on a no loading line outside Gregg's in Parkstone for less than a minute, got caught by the cow, sorry, Cash cow driving the car. And got a fine.
Yes I did deserve it and paid it. But I have now saved twice this amount by not bothering to stop for my morning breakfast. No more money for the shop and it's no wonder the High Street is going under.
What hurt most was a week later when I passed the same god dammed spot was the Councils own recycling lorry parked on the zig zag lines on prior to the pedestrian crossing emptying there bins. No 3 points and a fine for him.
No, Recycle, Reduce and Abuse.

One rule for them and another for us.
I stupidly parked on a no loading line outside Gregg's in Parkstone for less than a minute, got caught by the cow, sorry, Cash cow driving the car. And got a fine. Yes I did deserve it and paid it. But I have now saved twice this amount by not bothering to stop for my morning breakfast. No more money for the shop and it's no wonder the High Street is going under. What hurt most was a week later when I passed the same god dammed spot was the Councils own recycling lorry parked on the zig zag lines on prior to the pedestrian crossing emptying there bins. No 3 points and a fine for him. No, Recycle, Reduce and Abuse. One rule for them and another for us. Neil's off to France

9:18pm Sat 7 Dec 13

retry69 says...

Still here then Neil :)
Still here then Neil :) retry69

9:29pm Sat 7 Dec 13

Neil's off to France says...

retry69 wrote:
Still here then Neil :)
Yes thank you, go when I want and return when I want to be fined.

Commenting from France and enjoying it. No petty cash cows here.

Hope you enjoy YOUR stay retard69.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Still here then Neil :)[/p][/quote]Yes thank you, go when I want and return when I want to be fined. Commenting from France and enjoying it. No petty cash cows here. Hope you enjoy YOUR stay retard69. Neil's off to France

9:58pm Sat 7 Dec 13

retry69 says...

Touchy the French aren't they or should it be touché,unintentiona
l mistake on the username monsewer but it has happened before merci :)
Touchy the French aren't they or should it be touché,unintentiona l mistake on the username monsewer but it has happened before merci :) retry69

10:19pm Sat 7 Dec 13

Jo Green says...

n4 wrote:
Mike R-B wrote:
Having read &quot;all" the above comments I can see that, ignoring the "wrongs or rights" of this incident, Jo has a brilliant brain, is tenacious, resolute in her beliefs and has a good knowledge of the legal system.
I would be glad to have her as a Barrister should I fall foul of the law.
You'll be 'going down' then... Jo does not even seem to understand why the Tribunal overturned her parking fines. Then, she has tried to make out that her motives for parking illegally were some kind of altruistic gesture... The only judge who might be convinced by this rubbish is that nice Mr Wiggs... I am not a lawyer and even I can see through her argument. Tenacious and resolute... I would say Pig headed and stubborn. Oh... and fundamentally wrong.
I unknowingly broke 1 rule, 3 times - yes, I know I should have been aware of the time restriction, but I wasn't!
Since being made aware of this rule, I have not broken it again.

The Council have broken many rules, that they should have been aware of, but apparently weren't!
Since being made aware of these rules, they have stated they will continue breaking them!!

Those of you that still believe I would have parked somewhere that put children in danger - please come down to Windsor Road and show me how! I can understand why people would assume I have when they haven't seen the actual location, as there is a yellow line with a time restriction on it, but in this case I truly believe it should not be there!

Those of you that believe you are 100% faultless - there lies fault number one! And, I believe you will find, being judgemental is fault number two!!!

For those of you that may be interested in the facts of the case - I am happy to post, on here, the details I put forward to the tribunal - the tribunal that found in my favour having considered ALL the EVIDENCE.
But, it will be quite long, so I am unsure how appropriate that might be!
So, in short, ..............

The ‘rules’ the council should have been aware of:

Film footage needs to be clear enough and of sufficient duration to prove the alleged contravention.

A loading ban does not restrict a vehicle from stopping to set down and pick up a passenger.

There should be a statement from the named civil enforcement officer or supervisor who reviewed the film and decided to issue a PCN.

There should be evidence (if necessary in addition to the film footage) that the carriageway markings and roadside signs are present and in order.

The council should have and publish on their website a code of practice for camera enforcement.

Approved devices can be used only where enforcement is difficult or sensitive and CEO (foot patrol) enforcement is not practical.

Ensure the correct road name is given for where the alleged contravention took place!!!!!

Signage – I have expanded on this as so many are unaware of the actual requirements!
The primary objective of any camera enforcement system is to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the road network by deterring motorists from breaking road traffic restrictions and detecting those that do. To do this, the system needs to be well publicised and indicated with lawful traffic signs.
There should be evidence of signs warning the public that camera enforcement is taking place.
The Secretary of State recommends that authorities put up signs to tell drivers that they are using cameras to detect contraventions. Signs must comply with TSRGD or have special authorisation from DfT.
The ONLY camera signs prescribed by the TSRGD 2002 relate to moving traffic observation, in particular speed monitoring and red-light-jumping at traffic lights. There is no camera sign prescribed by the Regulations to advertise stationary parking enforcement so the (necessary) signs must be specially authorised by the DfT.
You must let people know that they are in an area where CCTV surveillance is being carried out.
The most effective way of doing this is by using prominently placed signs at the entrance to the CCTV zone and reinforcing this with further signs inside the area.
Clear and prominent signs are particularly important where the cameras themselves are very discreet, or in locations where people might not expect to be under surveillance. As a general rule, signs should be more prominent and frequent where it would otherwise be less obvious to people that they are on CCTV.

So, as you can see, I am well aware of why the tribunal found in my favour - but I am also well aware of the fact they didn't HAVE to - they could have decided that I really deserved the fines despite all the legalities (trust me - they can do that!), but they didn't!
[quote][p][bold]n4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike R-B[/bold] wrote: Having read "all" the above comments I can see that, ignoring the "wrongs or rights" of this incident, Jo has a brilliant brain, is tenacious, resolute in her beliefs and has a good knowledge of the legal system. I would be glad to have her as a Barrister should I fall foul of the law.[/p][/quote]You'll be 'going down' then... Jo does not even seem to understand why the Tribunal overturned her parking fines. Then, she has tried to make out that her motives for parking illegally were some kind of altruistic gesture... The only judge who might be convinced by this rubbish is that nice Mr Wiggs... I am not a lawyer and even I can see through her argument. Tenacious and resolute... I would say Pig headed and stubborn. Oh... and fundamentally wrong.[/p][/quote]I unknowingly broke 1 rule, 3 times - yes, I know I should have been aware of the time restriction, but I wasn't! Since being made aware of this rule, I have not broken it again. The Council have broken many rules, that they should have been aware of, but apparently weren't! Since being made aware of these rules, they have stated they will continue breaking them!! Those of you that still believe I would have parked somewhere that put children in danger - please come down to Windsor Road and show me how! I can understand why people would assume I have when they haven't seen the actual location, as there is a yellow line with a time restriction on it, but in this case I truly believe it should not be there! Those of you that believe you are 100% faultless - there lies fault number one! And, I believe you will find, being judgemental is fault number two!!! For those of you that may be interested in the facts of the case - I am happy to post, on here, the details I put forward to the tribunal - the tribunal that found in my favour having considered ALL the EVIDENCE. But, it will be quite long, so I am unsure how appropriate that might be! So, in short, .............. The ‘rules’ the council should have been aware of: Film footage needs to be clear enough and of sufficient duration to prove the alleged contravention. A loading ban does not restrict a vehicle from stopping to set down and pick up a passenger. There should be a statement from the named civil enforcement officer or supervisor who reviewed the film and decided to issue a PCN. There should be evidence (if necessary in addition to the film footage) that the carriageway markings and roadside signs are present and in order. The council should have and publish on their website a code of practice for camera enforcement. Approved devices can be used only where enforcement is difficult or sensitive and CEO (foot patrol) enforcement is not practical. Ensure the correct road name is given for where the alleged contravention took place!!!!! Signage – I have expanded on this as so many are unaware of the actual requirements! The primary objective of any camera enforcement system is to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the road network by deterring motorists from breaking road traffic restrictions and detecting those that do. To do this, the system needs to be well publicised and indicated with lawful traffic signs. There should be evidence of signs warning the public that camera enforcement is taking place. The Secretary of State recommends that authorities put up signs to tell drivers that they are using cameras to detect contraventions. Signs must comply with TSRGD or have special authorisation from DfT. The ONLY camera signs prescribed by the TSRGD 2002 relate to moving traffic observation, in particular speed monitoring and red-light-jumping at traffic lights. There is no camera sign prescribed by the Regulations to advertise stationary parking enforcement so the (necessary) signs must be specially authorised by the DfT. You must let people know that they are in an area where CCTV surveillance is being carried out. The most effective way of doing this is by using prominently placed signs at the entrance to the CCTV zone and reinforcing this with further signs inside the area. Clear and prominent signs are particularly important where the cameras themselves are very discreet, or in locations where people might not expect to be under surveillance. As a general rule, signs should be more prominent and frequent where it would otherwise be less obvious to people that they are on CCTV. So, as you can see, I am well aware of why the tribunal found in my favour - but I am also well aware of the fact they didn't HAVE to - they could have decided that I really deserved the fines despite all the legalities (trust me - they can do that!), but they didn't! Jo Green

11:30pm Sat 7 Dec 13

Neil's off to France says...

Retard69 bien, quand je me réveille plus tard aujourd'hui, je vais être en France, vous serez dans un lit mouillé à Boscombe. Le choix est le vôtre, Monsieur.
Retard69 bien, quand je me réveille plus tard aujourd'hui, je vais être en France, vous serez dans un lit mouillé à Boscombe. Le choix est le vôtre, Monsieur. Neil's off to France

7:07am Sun 8 Dec 13

retry69 says...

Neil's off to France wrote:
Retard69 bien, quand je me réveille plus tard aujourd'hui, je vais être en France, vous serez dans un lit mouillé à Boscombe. Le choix est le vôtre, Monsieur.
Typical troll always has to drag the name of Boscombe into it.why is that ?
[quote][p][bold]Neil's off to France[/bold] wrote: Retard69 bien, quand je me réveille plus tard aujourd'hui, je vais être en France, vous serez dans un lit mouillé à Boscombe. Le choix est le vôtre, Monsieur.[/p][/quote]Typical troll always has to drag the name of Boscombe into it.why is that ? retry69

8:32am Sun 8 Dec 13

JustForPoole says...

JO GREEN ... you admit you were WRONG. The appeal found the camera car to be WRONG. Two wrongs DO NOT MAKE a RIGHT. Move on .. park properly for the safety of others and then we wont have to worry if the camera car is right or wrong. Hopefully the humans around the schools will be safe from someone who tries to put themselves above the law as a way to combat their total laziness. Stop writing books of feeble excuses trying to lay your blame on someone else. You look the type of woman with what I think is a soft top car who probably drives around posing, hence the silly hair do, and then parks in disabled bays as well as on yellow lines and zig zags!!!
JO GREEN ... you admit you were WRONG. The appeal found the camera car to be WRONG. Two wrongs DO NOT MAKE a RIGHT. Move on .. park properly for the safety of others and then we wont have to worry if the camera car is right or wrong. Hopefully the humans around the schools will be safe from someone who tries to put themselves above the law as a way to combat their total laziness. Stop writing books of feeble excuses trying to lay your blame on someone else. You look the type of woman with what I think is a soft top car who probably drives around posing, hence the silly hair do, and then parks in disabled bays as well as on yellow lines and zig zags!!! JustForPoole

8:25pm Sun 8 Dec 13

Frank Spencer says...

She parked on a yellow line - acknowledge she does not understand this - a retest in called for. Ignorance of the law does not get you off. Reinstate the just fines.
She parked on a yellow line - acknowledge she does not understand this - a retest in called for. Ignorance of the law does not get you off. Reinstate the just fines. Frank Spencer

11:16am Mon 9 Dec 13

Molecatcher says...

Frank Spencer wrote:
She parked on a yellow line - acknowledge she does not understand this - a retest in called for. Ignorance of the law does not get you off. Reinstate the just fines.
I would reinstate the Stocks... Or maybe the Ducking Stool for people like her... The council could make a lot of money by selling bags of rotten fruit and veg to the neighbourhood...
[quote][p][bold]Frank Spencer[/bold] wrote: She parked on a yellow line - acknowledge she does not understand this - a retest in called for. Ignorance of the law does not get you off. Reinstate the just fines.[/p][/quote]I would reinstate the Stocks... Or maybe the Ducking Stool for people like her... The council could make a lot of money by selling bags of rotten fruit and veg to the neighbourhood... Molecatcher

11:31am Mon 9 Dec 13

JackJohnson says...

Is there signage to tell drivers the hours during which parking is not allowed? Google Streetview says yes. Admittedly they could be very old images.

Was she parked on a yellow line during those hours? She admits she was.

In future have the decency to put your hands up to your parking offences, pay your fines and do not try to get off on a technicality you selfish woman.
Is there signage to tell drivers the hours during which parking is not allowed? Google Streetview says yes. Admittedly they could be very old images. Was she parked on a yellow line during those hours? She admits she was. In future have the decency to put your hands up to your parking offences, pay your fines and do not try to get off on a technicality you selfish woman. JackJohnson

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree