notomob.co.uk
General Category => General No To Mob Discussion => Topic started by: Nigel W on 17 September, 2011, 08:33:59 AM
-
"The authority, which said in July it would only refund drivers who responded to adverts, changed its mind amid pressure from campaigners, who accused it of trying to minimise payouts from a £1m reimbursement fund."
I wonder who they were?
"Lord True said on Tuesday he “deplored” campaigners' claims the council would be guilty of theft if it did not pay back all of the £1m, but he had decided writing to wrongly fined drivers was the “right thing to do”.
The following was contained in The Mob's information for Councillors: Please also be aware that Lord Lucas has publicly stated that “If [councils] have been found to have done something which exceeds their powers and have taken money without due cause, then not to pay it back is theft.”.
Therefore a 'campaigner' who is a colleague of Lord True disagrees with him.
See the whole article and picture (Captioned: "Victory: Motoring campaigners outside York House") of the mob:
(I have placed a detailed comment beneath the article.)
http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/9256158.Council_u_turn_over_CCTV_car_blunder/ (http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/9256158.Council_u_turn_over_CCTV_car_blunder/)
Edit at 4:54 pm: A very interesting thread is developing below this article.
-
A Lib. Dem. Councillor has been posting beneath this article. He has been well and truly (no pun intended) routed by BE myself and Esinem in our postings. Makes interesting reading.
The story went online yesterday Sat at 8:00 am and was the most read and most commented in story by yesterday afternoon.
-
Nigel just a thought :idea:
What about the people that havent been able to pay the ticket,and have gone through the court system and may have had the bailliff's in? Whats the council going to do about that?
Will the baillifs have to refund cost's to the public as they charge money for filling in a payment plan and they also charge the public to attend the property in the first instance?
Will the council have to refund the bailliff's?
Will the council have more legal issues to deal with besides a simple refund?
-
Good point MG :aplude: Will Richmond have opened them self's up for potential Law Suits from people who have had the Bailiffs visit and goods taken? Plus the stress that they have been put under. :idea:
-
I am not certain about this aspect. I have mentioned it in one of my postings under the article in the Richmond & Twickenhan Times. Certainly if bailiffs have been involved people ought to be fully compensated.
Richmond could try to argue that bailiffs fees are only involved because people did not pay. This in my view would not hold water because the fine itself was unlawful.
:idea: A householder is wrongly billed by the Council for Council tax that they have already paid. An unlawful demand. Bailiffs are sent in and strip the house. Down the line the Householder is able to prove that the Council Tax had already been paid. That person would certainly receive compensation not only for his furniture. The householder could sue and win for all manner of things.
Now what about someone like Mr Gillman who was unable to take his kids on a planned holiday due to having had to pay an unlawful demand of £300. Could he claim for loss of enjoyment?
What about the interest that the money would have earned for its rightful owner that the Council got?
What would happen to a person who was unable to buy his Euromillions lottery tickets with his regular numbers that came up?!!! :o
The list is endless.
I have no doubt that this will all come out in the wash in due course.
-
It will be interesting to see how things develop...
-
Its a bit blurry MG but from the words I could make out I think it's about a motorist Dogging in his car and getting caught on CCTV. :pmsl:
-
@ Pat take your glasses from your "moped" compartment and put them on :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl:
you can enlarge it fully :D
-
@ Pat take your glasses from your "moped" compartment and put them on :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl:
you can enlarge it fully :D
Enlarge it fully!!! I must have missed that bit. ;D
-
Do you think the councils parking dept conversations are a bit like this at the moment :pmsl:
(http://serve.mysmiley.net/mad/mad0159.gif) (http://www.mysmiley.net) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-angry049.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared003.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-violent001.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-talk003.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-talk003.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-talk003.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
-
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing024.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
-
A Lib. Dem. Councillor has been posting beneath this article. He has been well and truly (no pun intended) routed by BE myself and Esinem in our postings. Makes interesting reading.
The story went online yesterday Sat at 8:00 am and was the most read and most commented in story by yesterday afternoon.
Did you ever get an answer from the Lib-Dem? They seem very immoral people, why would anyone vote for them?
Also I find the reference to NoToMob as 'rent-a-crowd' most offensive. NoToMob do not rent out to anyone. Is this a case of libel?
-
Java,
It could be libelous but it would depend on the definition of "rent a mob." There are several. I have been conducting a very good series of postings under the article. They are all Lib. Dems. One Councillor declared.
Support from BE and a few others. See:
http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/9256158.Council_u_turn_over_CCTV_car_blunder/ (http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/9256158.Council_u_turn_over_CCTV_car_blunder/)
Post if you wish.
-
AFAIK the Lib-Dems are the only party to have two 'manifestos' one for Local issues and another for National issues. These can totally contradict each other and yet, at the same time, interchangeable, so a Lib-Dem MP or Councillor who fails to honour an election promise can say 'it's against National/Local Policy' to suit. If they actually manage to keep a promise then it's 'in line with our election promise...'
Immoral? You betcha!!
On the other hand, I reckon they've made themselves un-electable after their u-turn on (among other things) Tuition Fees - unless the opposition is made up of Hitler, Stalin, Mao & Attila the Hun :D
-
I've just had a read of that article and it's replies. Very interesting indeed. I was going to reply but I couldn't be bothered to register with the intent of posting something that Roberts and Co will take no notice of whatsoever. Instead, I have just ordered a pallet of bricks, some sand, cement and a trowel from Travis Perkins. I need to build a sturdy wall to bang my head against after reading some of their mind numbing drivel. I just can't get my head around the fact that parking laws are black and white with no room for ambiguity. You're on or you're off, you're in or you're out. No grey area at all and no consideration for mitigating circumstances. I have no sympathy for a genuinely inconsiderate driver who parks at a bus stop and leaves his/her vehicle for two hours, regardless of certification. On the other hand, someone who stops at a bus stop for no more than twenty seconds to let a passenger out is beaten with the same stick. If, for the sake of argument, there is a twenty minute window between buses, then how is the second example causing any problem? That aside, the council want zero tolerance and penalties executed with extreme prejudice, the law''s the law, end of. Quid pro quo. All we ask is that it cuts both ways. We're rather tired of dropping our trousers and bending over. If traffic enforcement was administered fairly and even handedly, We wouldn't have a problem. I get so annoyed at these stupid, pig thick ignorant, fuc............ got to go, my building materials have just shown up.
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-angry027.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
-
I've just had a read of that article and it's replies. Very interesting indeed. I was going to reply but I couldn't be bothered to register with the intent of posting something that Roberts and Co will take no notice of whatsoever. Instead, I have just ordered a pallet of bricks, some sand, cement and a trowel from Travis Perkins. I need to build a sturdy wall to bang my head against after reading some of their mind numbing drivel. I just can't get my head around the fact that parking laws are black and white with no room for ambiguity. You're on or you're off, you're in or you're out. No grey area at all and no consideration for mitigating circumstances. I have no sympathy for a genuinely inconsiderate driver who parks at a bus stop and leaves his/her vehicle for two hours, regardless of certification. On the other hand, someone who stops at a bus stop for no more than twenty seconds to let a passenger out is beaten with the same stick. If, for the sake of argument, there is a twenty minute window between buses, then how is the second example causing any problem? That aside, the council want zero tolerance and penalties executed with extreme prejudice, the law''s the law, end of. Quid pro quo. All we ask is that it cuts both ways. We're rather tired of dropping our trousers and bending over. If traffic enforcement was administered fairly and even handedly, We wouldn't have a problem. I get so annoyed at these stupid, pig thick ignorant, fuc............ got to go, my building materials have just shown up.
([url]http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-angry027.gif[/url]) ([url]http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php[/url])
I wholly agree with you.
-
The screenshot below is from the online news article in this thread. Somedays, the comedy just writes itself.
(http://serve.mysmiley.net/happy/happy0194.gif) (http://www.blueislandsdiving.com)
-
That stupid Lib-Dem monkey (no dis-respect to actual simian primates) is still at it. He really should try to find someone that actually values his opinion. Here's an interesting little website;
http://glalibdems.org.uk/en/ (http://glalibdems.org.uk/en/)
About halfway down; "The Liberal Democrats exist to fight conformity"
There's also an article on there criticising Oyster overcharging by TFL. I don't think the Lib-Dems are happy for them to keep their ill gotten gains.
(http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/free-indifferent-smileys-437.gif) (http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/facebook-smileys.html)
-
I've just had a read of that article and it's replies. Very interesting indeed. I was going to reply but I couldn't be bothered to register with the intent of posting something that Roberts and Co will take no notice of whatsoever. Instead, I have just ordered a pallet of bricks, some sand, cement and a trowel from Travis Perkins. I need to build a sturdy wall to bang my head against after reading some of their mind numbing drivel. I just can't get my head around the fact that parking laws are black and white with no room for ambiguity. You're on or you're off, you're in or you're out. No grey area at all and no consideration for mitigating circumstances. I have no sympathy for a genuinely inconsiderate driver who parks at a bus stop and leaves his/her vehicle for two hours, regardless of certification. On the other hand, someone who stops at a bus stop for no more than twenty seconds to let a passenger out is beaten with the same stick. If, for the sake of argument, there is a twenty minute window between buses, then how is the second example causing any problem? That aside, the council want zero tolerance and penalties executed with extreme prejudice, the law''s the law, end of. Quid pro quo. All we ask is that it cuts both ways. We're rather tired of dropping our trousers and bending over. If traffic enforcement was administered fairly and even handedly, We wouldn't have a problem. I get so annoyed at these stupid, pig thick ignorant, fuc............ got to go, my building materials have just shown up.
([url]http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-angry027.gif[/url]) ([url]http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php[/url])
Where are you building this wall? After having got sucked into that particular debate with a bunch of idiots who don't appear to have any qualms about holding on to money that doesn't belong to them, I thought I might come and join you. :bashy: :bashy: :bashy:
-
Sometimes you have to realise when it's a waste of time. King Canute's latest post states how he disagrees with the $camera car and has campaigned to get rid of them. Still happy to live off the money they generate, however. I did PM Nigel and told him to 'stop feeding the troll.' It has no logical end to it. You can never reason with a man that has no reason. Clearly, the best part of Cllr. Roberts was left on the curtains.
My wall is at your disposal.
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-violent083.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)