Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I don't really regard breaking the law in a number of dangerous ways trivial.

The only thing trivial is your silly response.

"BUT MAYBE THEY WERE ONLY THERE BECAUSE YOU WERE TOO LAZY AND INCONSIDERATE TO PARK YOUR CAR PROPERLY IN THE FIRST INSTANCE" - I was standing outside my house nowhere near my car. They were not there because of anything I did.


Driving while using a mobile phone is the cause of lord knows how many accidents every year. Not sure about abysmally dangerous parking but it if it wasn't a problem it wouldn't be regulated agains.

The reason I get annoyed (and so do a lot of other people) is that those enforcing the law should not think that they are above it but frequently do. There is nothing wrong with carrying out our duty as taxpayers and citizens to ensure that those who we pay to enforce our laws also abide by them.



sniffy Wrote:

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

> Loz Wrote:

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

> -----

> > > Edited 2 time(s). Last edit was today,

> 11:24pm

> > by sniffy.

> >

> > You had to edit that 2 times, Sniffy?? Was it

> not

> > wildly deranged enough or badly punctuated

> enough

> > on the first two attempts? Not enough question

> > marks or exclamation marks to get the point

> > across?

>

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

> For sure, something like that ;)

> Really though, some people just whinge about the

> most trivial things...

> When quite possibly they're in the wrong in the

> first instance?

> Just MHO

>

> All peace and good will kind of stuff

> x

Gimme Wrote:

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

> I don't really regard breaking the law in a number

> of dangerous ways trivial.

> The only thing trivial is your silly response.

> "BUT MAYBE THEY WERE ONLY THERE BECAUSE YOU WERE

> TOO LAZY AND INCONSIDERATE TO PARK YOUR CAR

> PROPERLY IN THE FIRST INSTANCE" - I was standing

> outside my house nowhere near my car. They were

> not there because of anything I did.


Ok fair enough. You did state however, that you had been ticketed for parking in a loading bay which you then later spotted traffic warden using?


That aside, when people are 'tempted' to park illegally it is usually because there are few/no 'legal' places left to park.


So, by definition there will be no places left for parking wardens when they really need to do their job?


"The reason I get annoyed (and so do a lot of other people) is that those enforcing the law should not think that they are above it but frequently do. There is nothing wrong with carrying out our duty as taxpayers and citizens to ensure that those who we pay to enforce our laws also abide by them."


So for example, do you really expect the Police to stay within the standard realms of the law when going about their business? like staying within speed limits whilst chasing speeding stolen cars?

Surely they must be allowed extended powers in order to effectively carry out their job.

Futile otherwise?

If everyone stayed within the law, they wouldn't be forced to go beyond it in order to penalise/catch us?


Please don't get me wrong, I hate getting parking tickets, but when i do.... well it's mostly my own fault of course!

And finally, to agree with you on at least one point :) I absolutely hate people who use mobiles whilst driving...


S/

I don't think traffic wardens are necessarily the servants of society you make them out to be. Many of them use predatory tactics, or give tickets to people who are parked legally - just in case they get away with it.


And coming to think of it - why do traffic wardens in London need to use cars anyway?

Can you find out from 'Lord' exactly how many accidents are caused by Mobiles? Im sure they DO cause accidents.

Also what about Police on their radios does this cause accidents? Taxi drivers talking to Control Etc. Is the Radio bad to?

I wonder. I know listening to Enigma sends me to sleep and Bat out of Hell wakes me up!

Someone using their phone ran into the back of my bike (pedal bike) in a transit van at a roundabout last year so I know they do cause accidents for sure. He couldn't have missed me if he was concentrating. I was only wearing a high viz jacket and 2 flashing lights....



the-e-dealer Wrote:

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

> Can you find out from 'Lord' exactly how many

> accidents are caused by Mobiles? Im sure they DO

> cause accidents.

> Also what about Police on their radios does this

> cause accidents? Taxi drivers talking to Control

> Etc. Is the Radio bad to?

> I wonder. I know listening to Enigma sends me to

> sleep and Bat out of Hell wakes me up!

I'd still like the figures- Incidentally I nearly hit a bike today with only one flashing light - . It looked like a reflection from the side of the road. I expect two Flashing lights would be better. Don't they do proper lights for bikes anymore?
You have my sympathy. Southwark parking wardens are terrible. I got a penalty charge notice for sitting in my car for five minutes while i waited to pick my friend up. This was on a closed off road on elm grove-there is no traffic whatsoever there-there are no cars there!!!!!! Their cameras spotted me for being parked over 50cm form the double yellow. Didn't even get out the car. If you know the area you will know this is daylight robbery. I would rather be mugged for ?60 as I would feel less violated...

And the abuse of position goes on. Right on the junction of Lordship Lane and Hansler Road, one of Southwark Parking's Orwellian camera cars, parked on double-yellows, engine running, in a position blocking motorists' views left. This is a tricky sightline even when cars are parked legally and I suspect that if the police, or a civil (as opposed to council) traffic warden saw this you'd end up with endorsements. Outrageous.


http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/5001/carkz.th.jpg


BTW, after over 30 mins, the car is still there, engine running. I think that's an offence too.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Surprise, surprise. It didn't take them long, did it. This will be something of a test as to how much the council really care about parks and the environment. A footfall of 60,000. Are they mad? There is no way this park is designed for or can sustain that sort of use. Just had a look at the schedule. If allowed to go ahead, this will involve a large slice of the park (not the common) sectioned off and out of use for three weeks of May and the first week of June. Here's an idea, why not trial the festival in one of the other Southwark Parks, so the 'goodness' can be shared around the borough?
    • There was another unprovoked attack on Monday this week on a young woman nearby (Anstey Road) at 6.45pm. Don't have any other details, it was posted on a Facebook group by her flatmate. Pretty worrying  https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1EGfDrCAST/
    • OMFG is it possible for the council to do anything without a bunch of armchair experts moaning about it? The library refurb is great news, as it's lovely but completely shagged out - the toilets don't even work reliably. Other libraries in the area will be open longer house during the closure. July is a rubbish time to begin a refurb because it's just before the entire construction sector goes on summer holiday, and it would mean delaying the work another 8 months.
    • Licensing application for 2026 has gone in and they want to extend the event from 4 to 7 days accross two weekends.  There are some proposed significant changes to be aware of:   Event proposal moves to two separate weekends Number of days of the festival moves from 4 to 7 meaning also a change in the original licence is required Expected footfall in the park over the two weekends around 60,000.    Dear Peckham Rye Park Stakeholder,   Re: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION – event application: ‘GALA and On The Rye Festival 2026’ – ref: SWKEVE000935   We are writing to you because you have previously identified yourself as someone who wishes to be informed about event applications for Peckham Rye Park, or we think that you might have an interest in knowing about this particular event application.   Please be aware that the council are in receipt of an event application for: GALA and On The Rye Festival 2026’   In line with the council’s Outdoor Events Policy and events application process we are carrying out consultation regarding this application.   The following reference documents are attached to this email:   Consultation information APPENDIX A – site plan weekend 1 APPENDIX B – site plan weekend 2 APPENDIX C – Production Schedule APPENDIX D – 2025 Noise Management Plan   The consultation is open from Tuesday 4 November and will close at midnight on Tuesday 2 December 2025   Community engagement sessions will take place on Wednesday 19 November.   If you would like to comment on application: SWKEVE000935 and take part in the online consultation, please visit:   www.southwark.gov.uk/GALA2026   If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact us.     Kind Regards, Southwark Events Team Environment and Leisure PO Box 64529 London SE1P 5LX 020 7525 3639 @SouthwarkEvents APPENDIX A - SITE PLAN weekend 1.pdf APPENDIX B - SITE PLAN weekend 2.pdf APPENDIX C - PRODUCTION SCHEDULE.pdf And just to add that councillor Renata Hamvas chairs the licensing committee. Worth contacting her with views on ammendments to the original license. I am fairly sure she won't grant any amendments, but just in case.....
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...