Just got clamped in Peckham Pulse car park - help! (Lounged)

[RosieH]

Oh Mick...

[Mick Mac]

Yep - that sort of humour doesn't impress anyone.

[thebeard]

RosieH Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> thebeard Wrote:

>

> > You're very funny but not too clever or you?re

> a

> > poor reader.

>

>

> Damn straight, I'm thick as pig shit. But what

> snorky said.

>

> All this tosh about councils up and down the land

> penalising road users and setting traps to make

> money out of them - I've got a suggestion: STICK

> IT TO THE MAN - don't do the things that get you

> fined, that'll learn 'im.

>

> I may be simple, but I've learned from Catchphrase

> to say what I see, say what I see.

Pig shit is runny n thin not thick, work that one out ................................

Why not rear every thing two or three times then you might get it? could also try using your finger to point to each word one at a time that could work for you.

Or

Maybe you just need engage brain clear it ?shouldn?t be hard? then start reading without any preconcieved ideas about what you?d like to read.

Ummmmmmmmmm

Or were you trying to be funny again?

Right over my head?.

[RosieH]

If Southwark had their way we?d be burnt in a few car tires, South African style for parking offences in the borough.

and then

Pig shit is runny n thin not thick, work that one out ................................

Forgive me, thebeard, I don't tend to hang with the swine, so I employed a popular idiom without having considered the very real implications behind what I was saying. I stand corrected.

You come across as quite quite sensible, so I'm sure your accusation that councils are simply money grabbers is accurate, and that a ?60 parking fine is not intended to act as a deterrent, rather it is a very expensive car park fee.

[Moos]

thebeard Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Pig shit is runny n thin not thick, work that one

> out ................................

>

>

> Why not rear every thing two or three times then

> you might get it? could also try using your finger

> to point to each word one at a time that could

> work for you.

>

> Or

>

> Maybe you just need engage brain clear it

> ?shouldn?t be hard? then start reading without any

> preconcieved ideas about what you?d like to read.

>

>

> Ummmmmmmmmm

>

>

> Or were you trying to be funny again?

>

> Right over my head?.

thebeard, why do you start accusing people who disagree with you of being stupid in these aggressive terms? I've seen you do it a couple of times now, and I just don't think it's helpful. Trying to keep an open mind on this one, and I'm happy to be proved wrong, but I'm getting the impression that you struggle to communicate with adults as equals.

[thebeard]

Moos Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> thebeard Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Pig shit is runny n thin not thick, work that

> one

> > out ................................

> >

> >

> > Why not rear every thing two or three times

> then

> > you might get it? could also try using your

> finger

> > to point to each word one at a time that could

> > work for you.

> >

> > Or

> >

> > Maybe you just need engage brain clear it

> > ?shouldn?t be hard? then start reading without

> any

> > preconcieved ideas about what you?d like to

> read.

> >

> >

> > Ummmmmmmmmm

> >

> >

> > Or were you trying to be funny again?

> >

> > Right over my head?.

>

> thebeard, why do you start accusing people who

> disagree with you of being stupid in these

> aggressive terms? I've seen you do it a couple of

> times now, and I just don't think it's helpful.

> Trying to keep an open mind on this one, and I'm

> happy to be proved wrong, but I'm getting the

> impression that you struggle to communicate with

> adults as equals.

I believe I DO NOT start accusing people who disagree with me of being stupid.

IF you read and IF they read what I have written then you and they will see that they have not interpreted what I have written correctly.

I accuse people of being STUPID when they don?t read what I have written.

It is tedious to continually have to deal with people who don?t read or misread what is written.

To then be accused of exactly the opposite of what I have written

I?ve made it pretty clear there is no reading between the lines yet Stupidity and self-importance runs away with them?

None of us should suffer nonsense from fools?

Please have another read of the thread and I?m happy to be wrong if you can show that I have been unclear or ambiguous.

If I have I?ll apologise fully for being wrong.

[RosieH]

I believe I DO NOT start accusing people who disagree with me of being stupid.

You're very funny but not too clever or you?re a poor reader.

Why not rear every thing two or three times then you might get it? could also try using your finger to point to each word one at a time that could work for you. Maybe you just need engage brain clear it ?shouldn?t be hard? then start reading without any preconcieved ideas about what you?d like to read.

The irony.

Edited because I'm not a c0ck and don't believe in belittling other posters unnecessarily and edited again because of a cross-posted apology.

[thebeard]

RosieH Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If Southwark had their way we?d be burnt in a few

> car tires, South African style for parking

> offences in the borough.

>

> and then

>

> Pig shit is runny n thin not thick, work that one

> out ................................

>

> Forgive me, thebeard, I don't tend to hang with

> the swine, so I employed a popular idiom without

> having considered the very real implications

> behind what I was saying. I stand corrected.

>

> You come across as quite quite sensible, so I'm

> sure your accusation that councils are simply

> money grabbers is accurate, and that a ?60 parking

> fine is not intended to act as a deterrent, rather

> it is a very expensive car park fee.

Apologies for being angry with you, short fuse n all that.

I find more and more that we are all living under a huge amount of pressure from poorly managed local expensive government.

And it makes me very very angry.

Because it makes for a HARSH living environment for all of us.

It would be interesting to see accurate figures of total cost of parking regulation and income from parking fines then we?d know.

But unfortunately this information, which should be public knowledge, is not public so we can only conclude that they do not want us to know, I could be wrong.

If that is so they probably have something to hide.

I agree totally that if you are at fault then you should get a fine.

I believe Southwark intentionally restrict parking where there is no need to restrict it, if it?s not intentional then it is incompetently managed.

[Moos]

Edited to say this post crossed with RosieH's and yours. I'll leave it to stand, but apologies if it seemed as though I was attacking you when you'd already responded to her.

----------------------------------------------------

I assume that we can agree that 'You're very funny but not too clever or you?re a poor reader'

which then escalated to

'Why not rear every thing two or three times then you might get it? could also try using your finger to point to each word one at a time that could work for you. Or Maybe you just need engage brain clear it ?shouldn?t be hard? then start reading without any preconcieved ideas about what you?d like to read. Ummmmmmmmmm Or were you trying to be funny again? Right over my head?.

qualifies as attacking someone for being stupid. Your response is to say that you accuse them of being stupid 'when they don?t read what I have written...Stupidity and self-importance runs away with them'.

I'd suggest that a more helpful response when you think someone has misinterpreted what you say is to engage with them. Remake your point in a different way. Query. Discuss. Going off on one just puts everyone on the defensive and bang! goes the chance of actually talking.

Second, have you considered that the reason that people don't understand what you say is because of the way that you express it? I read your post from 2.38 yesterday and some of it seems confusing to me.

For example

"Parking in the borough is unreasonably restricted look at lordship lane there is plenty of room for parking and why are there no meters?

Meters would stop all day parking!"

So if the parking is already restricted, how do meters help make it less restricted? Meters would stop all-day parking? But you've just said you want the parking to be more restricted!

But hey - maybe I'm just stupid. Why would you care about my opinion?

[thebeard]

RosieH Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I believe I DO NOT start accusing people who

> disagree with me of being stupid.

>

>

> You're very funny but not too clever or you?re a

> poor reader.

>

> Why not rear every thing two or three times then

> you might get it? could also try using your finger

> to point to each word one at a time that could

> work for you. Maybe you just need engage brain

> clear it ?shouldn?t be hard? then start reading

> without any preconcieved ideas about what you?d

> like to read.

>

>

>

> The irony. I've tried rearing everything 2 or 3

> times, but it takes years for them to grow up, and

> that would leave scant time for the posting.

>

> Edited because I'm not a c0ck and don't believe in

> belittling other posters unnecessarily.

Yes but you are happy to interpret what I had written incorrectly, post up a cocky retort and not admit it you were wrong.

You?re just proving me right again.

V funny

[thebeard]

LOL

The sooner we run out of oil the sooner all this car nonsense will go away.

Oh I forgot about eclectic gas and hydrogen cars.

Best we work it all out then.

[SeanMacGabhann]

why are you so convinced it's government that makes for a harsh environment, tb?

My contention is that simple physics and numbers is making the environment harsh. The volume of cars on the road, increasing exponetially is the issue. If car parks were unregulated for example some people would just abuse it and exclude everyone else. If people were more considerate then councils/government wouldn't need to spend so much time dealing with the fallout

[RosieH]

No, I already admitted I was wrong. Pig shit is runny and the council ARE all about making money out of poor innocent drivers.

And you are a genius.

[thebeard]

Moos Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

Edited out ? to answer.

>

> For example

> "Parking in the borough is unreasonably restricted

> look at lordship lane there is plenty of room for

> parking and why are there no meters?

>

> Meters would stop all day parking!"

>

> So if the parking is already restricted, how do

> meters help make it less restricted? Meters would

> stop all-day parking? But you've just said you

> want the parking to be more restricted!

>

> But hey - maybe I'm just stupid. Why would you

> care about my opinion?

I do care honest.

I agree some of what I write is confusing sorry I only have time to blurt out my thoughts semi edited I apologise for the confusion.

I?ll translate the section you quote above.

------------------

Getting confused over the restriction type?

Restricted parking type 1 = restricted availability of parking due to cars taking up a parking space for the whole day.

Which results in fewer spaces becoming available during the business day.

Restricted parking type 2 = parking restricted by CPZ and meters

This results in restriction in time allowance which results in higher turnover of parked cars.

I believe restriction type 2 is better than restriction type 1

I?m now confused lol lol ?

[Moos]

OK, now I get it. Thanks.

[thebeard]

RosieH Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No, I already admitted I was wrong. Pig shit is

> runny and the council ARE all about making money

> out of poor innocent drivers.

>

> And you are a genius.

I?m thick as pig shit if I wasn?t I?d be wealthy, happy and on a beach drinking champagne every day.

I should also have pointed out that the council are mainly about internal job creation, which results in them needing to make money.

Every council department head needs to make his or her department as big as possible the bigger the department the bigger their pay etc etc?

There is very little emphasis for them to reduce staff levels and save money.

Drivers are just the tip of the con.

Local councils make the house of commons look like a kindergarten.

Mind you they doing one good service for us, as the front line low-level council employees, would be out in the real world working amongst us ahhhhhhhhhhhh the thought of it ?????

[thebeard]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> why are you so convinced it's government that

> makes for a harsh environment, tb?

>

> My contention is that simple physics and numbers

> is making the environment harsh. The volume of

> cars on the road, increasing exponetially is the

> issue. If car parks were unregulated for example

> some people would just abuse it and exclude

> everyone else. If people were more considerate

> then councils/government wouldn't need to spend so

> much time dealing with the fallout

Government is at the heart of our society so their management directs our lives

They are responsible for managing everything from education policing to national security and the legal system, planning road works etc etc they are at every corner of our lives.

Government manages the physics via numbers which = harsh or humane environment

We probably have a better government today than at any time in history and I?m glad to be here in the UK but as we have seen in the last week we still have a long way to go.

They fail us often and need to be pushed towards making practical and useful changes towards a more humane environment.

Car parking is just an every day annoyance along with filthy streets and poor infrastructure.

[ruffers]

Machine says don't park till tomorrow.

You park.

What exactly were you expecting?

[thebeard]

ruffers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Machine says don't park till tomorrow.

> You park.

>

>

>

> What exactly were you expecting?

ruffers

My guess and this could be a wild outrageous one?.

Is Lizzie like most of us humans, was looking for practical common sense resolution and somewhere to park her car.

Brain sees empty car park brain thinks I should be able to park in it.

BUT NOooooooooooo here in the socialist inflexible Robotic Regime of Southwark nothing is what it appears, common sense takes a back seat to an out of order machine and an out of order council parking scheme and its unreasonable mechanical robotic parking attendants and their useless faulty machines.

WHAT is it with you HUMAN LEMMINGS?

Has it finally come to MACHINES ruling us and common sense dying a DEATH?

You LEMMING away MATE.

I?m with Lizzie and COMMON sense practical solutions, over out of order anything!

[snorky]

thebeard Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ruffers Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Machine says don't park till tomorrow.

> > You park.

> >

> >

> >

> > What exactly were you expecting?

>

> ruffers

>

> My guess and this could be a wild outrageous

> one?.

>

>

>

> Is Lizzie like most of us humans, was looking for

> practical common sense resolution and somewhere to

> park her car.

>

>

>

> Brain sees empty car park brain thinks I should be

> able to park in it.

>

>

>

> BUT NOooooooooooo here in the socialist inflexible

> Robotic Regime of Southwark nothing is what it

> appears, common sense takes a back seat to an out

> of order machine and an out of order council

> parking scheme and its unreasonable mechanical

> robotic parking attendants and their useless

> faulty machines.

>

>

> WHAT is it with you HUMAN LEMMINGS?

>

>

> Has it finally come to MACHINES ruling us and

> common sense dying a DEATH?

>

>

>

> You LEMMING away MATE.

>

> I?m with Lizzie and COMMON sense practical

> solutions, over out of order anything!

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[SeanMacGabhann]

I think we can file that under another of thebeard's insults. And anyone who calls me MATE is automatically on shaky ground

What is with the big conspiracy theories thebeard? And why insult several people on here who just happen to work for this or other councils?

And lastly you didn't answer my question. Car parking isn't an issue that dropped out of the sky - it's the very real manifestatin of more HUMANS (as you call them) driving and taking up space on the roads every single day. That many cars need to be managed.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

The Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) system is to be fitted in a London bus and taxi, as well as 20 vehicles driven by TfL staff, from this summer. If it proves successful it is to be rolled out more widely, with Southwark Council having already expressed an interest in fitting the device in more than 300 vehicles, this will force other Motorists behind them to also, obey the limit..

You can choose which "mode" the car operates in but I think we know which "mode" will be TOLD to use! lol

"Force" other drivers..."OBEY" the limit...so Guys as you are not capable yourselves Big Brother Southwark will force you to do it their way...and anyway its the law, which no Southwark Council employee, inthe relevant Dept, NEVER breaks in any way.....i.e. NEVER buy "Black Market" Goods. never "Jay-Walk" . ALWAYS use Pedestrian crossings..NEVER Download stuff that should be paid for etc...thats "different" Laws, innit...

Anyway off to The South Downs in half-hour, far away from the MADding crowd of Southwark enforcers...:))

[thebeard]

Sorry old Chap ;-)

Read my other posts and I think you?ll see that I agree with you, management is exactly what is needed.

BUT it should be properly considered balanced management.

Common sense.

[thebeard]

Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) should become law for all.

It is no different to having good tires brakes bumpers and seat belts.

Maybe they could be set to allow 100mph on M ways between the hrs of say 1am and 5 am ie flexible speeds, which would make far more sense than fixed speeds.

Mind you I?m in favour of completely automated cars program in destination and read a book on the way there now that would be fantastic.

There is no pleasure in driving in the UK these days anyway.

[ruffers]

thebeard Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ruffers Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Machine says don't park till tomorrow.

> > You park.

> >

> >

> >

> > What exactly were you expecting?

>

> ruffers

>

> My guess and this could be a wild outrageous

> one?.

>

>

>

> Is Lizzie like most of us humans, was looking for

> practical common sense resolution and somewhere to

> park her car.

>

>

>

> Brain sees empty car park brain thinks I should be

> able to park in it.

>

>

>

> BUT NOooooooooooo here in the socialist inflexible

> Robotic Regime of Southwark nothing is what it

> appears, common sense takes a back seat to an out

> of order machine and an out of order council

> parking scheme and its unreasonable mechanical

> robotic parking attendants and their useless

> faulty machines.

>

>

> WHAT is it with you HUMAN LEMMINGS?

>

>

> Has it finally come to MACHINES ruling us and

> common sense dying a DEATH?

>

>

>

> You LEMMING away MATE.

>

> I?m with Lizzie and COMMON sense practical

> solutions, over out of order anything!

Even ignoring all the blah in that, you were thinking she was expecting a machine to apply common sense?

You're funny.