Blah Blah

Also there are only two ways that private land owners can enforce no parking, and that is by fines and PCNs (clamping is no longer legal) or by physically restricting access by gate/ lock/ barrier. So if the landowner wants to enforce unauthroised parking/use, the only option they have is to hire a parking enforcement company/gate keeper. This is how commercial premises control parking on their land.

Interesting polling here. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-britain-is-deeply-eurosceptic-but-will-still-decide-to-stay-says-poll-a6892086.html

I think that's right ????. We need to care more about MEP elections if we want the right calibre of MEPs there. Right now we have a bunch of UKippers who refuse to participate in any kind of meaningful reform. But there are other MEPs who do. These are our MEPs in London. http://www.europarl.org.uk/en/your-meps/uk_meps/london_region.html They all have monthly newsletters you can sign up to, to see what they are doing. 'The Tory 7 that are leading No and presumably fancy themselves running the country - absolutely awful.' Completely agree KirstyH - if they are the benchmark of what will come, then we should all be very worried.

Network rail replied to a FOI on this road and confirmed they did not own that land. Some differing opinions here, but still no evidence that the owner of the property in question owns the road. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/designation_of_railway_rise_se22 The land registry though shows the cottages sold as freehold. But the road does not belong to the freehold of those cottages. So no owner there has any right to enforce parking. Only the landowner can do that and I think given it's a commercial landowner, they probably don't care who uses it for now. I suspect there's a bit of OCD going on. Most of us live on roads, and have people parking and coming and going outside our homes all the time. If the commercial landowner does redevelop the site, they are going to have an increase in traffic anyway.

I accept that Jeremy. I think my point is more one of why people believe the things they do. It's so clear to me that a lot of people believe things about Europe without having the first clue about the economic detail. Take the myth that the EU somehow stops us trading with the rest of the world - it doesn't - but lots of people believe that, because certain people like Farage keep infering that it does. And whilst no-one can know exactly to what extent business would be affected by tariffs, we can at least look at Norway and Switzerland and make some informed stabs at it. Again, many people believe we pay too much to be part of the EU as though it is money that goes to the wind. But the same people don't know exactly how much we do pay, that half of it comes back in grants, and that membership enables ?200bn of exports every year. Too many people are making their decision based on a lack of knowledge of what actually is.

Louisa, from someone who thinks only 200,000 jobs rely on those 200bn of annual exports I'll pass. Whatever my argument is, it is better informed than yours by a mile. Whether people agree with my line is neither here nor there. In debating terms though, I prefer to have a balanced view based on fact, not soundbites swallowed hook, line and sinker from the UKIP Brexit bunch. I am assuming that's where you get your ideas as you certainly haven't got them from any kind of detailed research. I'll give you just one example. The Working Time Driective was set up to protect employees from being made to work long hours. The Tories were fiercely opposed to it, the same Tories that think zero hour contracts are acceptable. You really think that if we lose the pretection of a piece of regulation like that, that this government will still apply the legislation as 'a good thing' in principle? I've shown that trading with europe will still cost us, that it will cost British business. Renegotiating 50 trade deals with Europe will take years. That we already trade with the rest of the world, like China, India, the USA, Africa, Argentina. That non EU refugeess and how they travel has nothing to do with the EU per se. That five million brits live and work in the EU. Millions of Bulgarians and Rumanians did not head to Britain when they were allowed free movement finally - something that is claimed every time a country joins the EU these days. That we have a right wing government that is not interested in workers rights, unions or the poor (all groups the EU does protect). All of those things are hard to disagree with because they reflect what is. And in spite of these robust replies to your claims you haven't challenged a single one. Why is that Louisa? It's because you can never acknowledge you post stuff that is clearly untrue. I'm still waiting for you to provide the economic data that backs your claim that only 200,000 jobs rely on businesses trading with the EU. You say stuff, get called out, and then conveniently ignore the response, going on the attack instead by labelling someone as patronising. And that is why you are impossible to have any kind of debate with.

If you actually read those documents, they are formed by knowledgeable economists based on available data. You haven't challenged a single point in any of them. Whereas the one link you posted, I did read and challenge. You do contradict yourself and call foul when called out on it. It's not my fault that you fail to research your points properly. It's just too easy to find the holes. That's what happens when you engage in debate but aren't really up to it. And if you find that patronising...tough. Your lack of interest in the detail and economics of it all is down to you.

I don't consider occasionally dropping someone off to be anti-social. I do consider someone verbally abusing someone and taking photos they can't legally take as anti-social behaviour though - and would report such behaviour to the police for the agressive harassment that it is.

I know. That's why I gave up debating with her. A total contradiction.

But that is a moot point. A vehicle is not committing any infringement by doing that.

This is a recent article about TTIP, but it gives an insight into trade deals, especially with the USA. http://www.thecanary.co/2016/01/27/conservatives-block-access-secret-nhs-privatisation-documents/ Also the UK has 50 different trade deals with the EU, every single one of which would have to be renegotiated if we left the EU but still wanted to trade.

I didn't mention any companies, just that there was a land owner who also owned the commercial properties. No names whatsoever have been mentioned and no information offered that isn't already freely available in the public domain. '> the land is private Which is why the original poster should not be using the private road as a convenient commuter drop-off point for the car. John K' Not quite. It serves as an access road to commercial properties, so whilst the road is private, it is also open. There are lots of examples of these kinds of access roads. U turning on them or waiting on them is not a criminal act. The OP has done nothing wrong.

Bedbugs some times need a couple of treatments to get rid of completely because of the breeding cycle.

Indeed Rupert. Establishing that the person in question does not own the road and that the property company that owns the commercial premises does is important. Not only does it say that the woman has no right to enforce who uses the road, but that also she has no legal right to take photos, as the land is private and not owned by her.

But Dogger, we do have an idea of what an exit would mean for trade deals in the examples of Norway and Switzerland. So to say there's no precedent is wrong. And the economics of it aside, there are the regulatory requirements of dealing with the EU like free movement of people. These rules are all laid down in treaties and EU law that require a long process involving all member states to change. So in the short term, we absolutely would be subject to the same conditions as Norway and Switzerland, and the chances of changing those terms will be almost zero as we will have no power within the EU to lobby for change.

Louisa, you are deluded. Why do you keep arguing that the UK will get a more favourable deal than Norway and Switzerland? Do you think either of those two countries will let that happen? I've posted articles and data put together by people far more in the know than you. Read then and then challenge those if you can. Just assuming we are a more important player than Norway and Switzerland and that the EU will bow before us is so ridiculous.

Millions of turks are not going to come to the UK any more than millions of rumanians or bulgarians did. It's just nonsense. And Merkel says all kinds of things. You do realise that Turkey has to go through a lot of stages, including economic, before mebership can even be considered. They are nowhere near meeting those requirements yet. On your lorry driver example. If you don't want wages going down, join unions and take on your employers. We've always had surplus Labour (apart from the 60s) and employers often end jobs only to readvertise them at lower rates. That isn't caused by the Pole, but by the lack of worker organisation to fight for fair rates of pay.

Apparently it is owned by the property developer who owns the land for the Garden Centre. http://houseprices.landregistry.gov.uk/sold-prices/railway%20rise%20se22 It's a freehold, so the deeds will show if she owns the road or not.

To trade with the EU, we would have to pay around ?2bn a year to them, we'd have to abide by a third of EU regulations including the free movement of people. AND we would have no say in reforming any of those regulations. And tariffs could cost between ?18bn and ?50bn to UK exporters. Good report and analysis in this document. http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/pa016.pdf#page=3 So let's please stop with this nonsense that the EU will treat us any differently than other countries that trade with the EU

Louisa, you know nothing about tariffs if you really think 7bn saved will make up for the tariffs those companies will have to pay to continue trading. And for the umpteenth time, WE ALREADY TRADE WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD - the EU does not stop us from doing that. 'not that the EU would charge one of the largest economies in Europe if they had a brain between them, we aren't Norway or Switzerland' HA HA HA - really???? YOU posted that both those countries export more than the UK to the EU, and the EU charges them for the privilege. Get real Louisa - we are not an Empire anymore. To do ANY kind of trade with the EU we will still have to pay money to them and adopt EU rules that we will have no say in, just as both Switzerland and Norway have to. That is the flaw in YOUR argument.

apbremer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So Blah Blah will you be quite so keen on your > wretched EU whe 85m. Turks can come and live here > on benefits in five years time?? Turkey will never be allowed to join the EU while they continue to have poor human rights and harass the kurds. It's not going to happen. I also have a higher opinion of Turkish people than that too. There are already Turkish people living in the UK and most of them work. And they said the same about Rumamia and Bulgaria - they'll all come here and soak up our benefits! Didn't happen did it?

But I don't see why the OP can't pull in and turn his car there. It's a road and it seems to have no highways parking/stopping rules in place. The lady in question has no legal right to abuse drivers, and could be breaking the law herself if she is harassing motorists.

Quite malumbu. Farage is completely to blame for ths one, strange as most of his party rely on the EU for their jobs. Completely agree rahrah. We are not special and will lose far more than we gain outside of the EU. Your second paragraph Louisa are the reasons why we should STAY in Europe. Being out of the EU is guaranteed to give us NO input into EU affairs. Declining output has nothing to do with membership of the EU but the emerging markets being able to undercut our production costs. We have ?200bn worth of exports to the EU annually. Membership provides us with that major market, the value of which far exceeds the 7bn it costs us annually. Camerons chums only want out so they they don't have to give employees or unions, or anyone any rights whatsoever. They don't want any free market regulation. So you are arguing for something that will only make the Tory chums and their friends richer. We will still have a government who hate the poor and low waged. As for Boris, he's a clown - with no skills in international diplomacy whatsoever.

Cutting a pasting doesn't help your argument Louisa. I don't think you even know anything about Switzerland and Norway capita. This is the reality for both Norway and Switzerland http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/16/britain-would-be-diminished-by-leaving-eu You don't understand do you? These countries still have to pay something to trade within the EU. They are in a worse position than us because they have to apply EU legislation but have NO say on changing any of that.

And that report gets worse. The writer goes on to suggest that any jobs lost would be replaced by new jobs making the things we will no longer import from the EU! So we can make EU wine and champagne and French cheese? We import 2.1 billion pounds worth of mineral materials each month. We import them because we don't have those minerals in the UK. I am reading your doc Louisa but it gets more fanciful with each page, not because of the ideas it presents, but because it offers NO illlustrative data. He doesn't even cite a breakdown of what we actually export or import and consider how those indiovidual markets would be affected on their own terms. He just seems to argue the 'Labour Market Dynamism' will make everything ok! Well as we've seen recently with the steel industry, market price is everything. Small shifts put major industries out of business. Go and tell those out of work steel workers that Market Dynamism will sort them out. Complete fantasy from start to finish, without any detail.