notomob.co.uk

General Category => General No To Mob Discussion => Topic started by: Ewan Hoosami on 21 October, 2013, 05:55:29 PM

Title: F*ck POPLA, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 21 October, 2013, 05:55:29 PM
As we know POPLA was supposed to be handed over by 1st October. In the normal scheme of things London Councils of 59 1/2 Southwark Street (I think Nick Lester is the '1/2') would be chasing this up but they've been a bit pre-occupied. Apparently, some bounder (or group of bounders(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-music037.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)) has fixed a portable derail to the tracks just ahead of the massive gravy train that has been thundering through London for the last 20 and a bit years. The committee is meeting on Thursday to ask it's members for their thoughts on government proposals. A report has been written by Andrew Luck. Methinks their luck is fast running out.

http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/committees/agenda.htm?pk_agenda_items=5430 (http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/committees/agenda.htm?pk_agenda_items=5430)

Click on the Item 10 pdf at the bottom. (go on, you know you want to)

Point 3 sets out the flavour of it. Council officers seem to know better how to run enforcement than old tubby Pickles sticking his oar in as usual. They think they can come up with ideas that sustain fairness to the motorist.  :rotfl:

The rest of the report then goes into the usual weasel words of how effective CCTV enforcement has been in keeping the kiddies safe, especially outside schools, protecting the vulnerable, manging congestion, etc. Point 4 mentions that Greenwich and Kensington & Chelsea are the only two boroughs that don't have child protection $cars. I'm wondering how many casualties they get in those boroughs because the councils don't take public safety seriously enough. (especially outside schools)

Point 9 gets to the nitty-gritty. If CCTV tax farming is banned the the weasels won't be getting their money's worth out of all the public money they've spunked on it so far.

12 is a good one. Motorists should be compensated for wrongly issued fines. The bloody cheek of it. The council is never wrong. We work bloody hard down here, protecting the kiddies, keeping traffic flowing, and this is the thanks we get.

Boys and girls, I present to you item 15,

"There are no financial implications for London Councils or London boroughs arising from this report as it stands, though the Government’s proposals could have very significant financial implications for boroughs and London Councils, if implemented."

Very significant financial implications! Strange. That's what I thought it was all about.

(http://aldoninfo.com/images/derails/1wayhinged-220x222.jpg)
Title: Re: F*ck POPLA, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Post by: Pat Pending on 22 October, 2013, 10:17:02 AM
I suppose we could always put in some FOI's asking how many children were injured outside schools year on year outside schools!
Before and after the introduction of the $camera cars.
And if they say they do not have this information JOB DONE! another lie brought into the light of day.
Title: Re: F*ck POPLA, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Post by: goody2shoes on 22 October, 2013, 03:11:48 PM
I expect you'll bar me when I've finished I quite expect you to, but you keep inviting a "weasel"( I prefer the term parking professional) to respond lets see if you like an different point of view or are the notomob scared of a different viewpoint.

When you first started you were clear you were not in favour of illegal parking so why now are you constantly defending it?  What actions do you think will make a motorist park properly with consideration for others other than enforcement action.  Should it need valuable police time to be spent keeping the highways clear or why shouldn't a proper ELECTED authority have the powers to do so using contractors do the job and what is wrong with covering their costs? After all it is the electorate that can change the entire authority  at election time if they don't like the regime!

There are good well tested ways to contest a ticket and yes sometimes errors are made and it is these processes which resolve the matter not self appointed watchers of the state.

Why should children be put at risk at school gates if you had seen the evidence I have of parents driving and parking behaviour you would be screaming for more enforcement not less.  Using mobile CCTV is more cost effective it provides proper evidence and prevents assaults on staff.  The old saying still goes "Park properly and you don't need to worry about getting a PCN.

Notomob should be the motorists champion not the self seeking likes of Pickles, Herron and Segal they are only in it for themselves.  But the campaign for fair, consistent proper parking management should be carried out with respect to the professionals who would be willing to listen if you weren't so rude and apparently biased.

Believe it or not the majority of people working in the industry (no apologies for industry all of us earn a living in an industry whether it is dustman or judge) we seek to provide a good service that is fair to all.

If you want a proper discussion I'm here.
Title: Re: F*ck POPLA, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Post by: Belplasca on 22 October, 2013, 03:25:03 PM
Interesting post, Goddy2shoes.

And, if the $cars were used to control the amazingly bad driving at school gates, then I, for one, would be all for it.

But I ride past schools every day at around the time the kids are being dropped off. There are NEVER any $cars there ensuring safe driving near the little ones. As a result, the areas are incredibly dangerous. Not only for the kids, but also for other road users.

So, why don't the councils use the $cars to protect our kids? I don't know the answer to that one, especially as it's a line that they throw out at every opportunity.

As to the Notomob championing illegal parking. We don't. We champion proper parking where restrictions are properly set up and signed. The problem that we have is that councils seem to be almost completely unable to follow the simple rules that they are legally obliged to work under.

Time and again, we have pointed out deficiencies to them and they always say that they know best - until the higher authorities force them to behave properly.

As to being able to vote councils out at elections, the problem is that the ones usually responsible for failing to follow the rules are usually the permanent employees within the councils' workforces. The electorate has NO say in their continuance of employment. It is only by demonstrating incompetence that there is any chance of getting them replaced...

Bob
Title: Re: F*ck POPLA, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Post by: BGB on 22 October, 2013, 03:43:49 PM
Welcome Goody2shoes

We're nice really

The old saying still goes "Park properly and you don't need to worry about getting a PCN.

Really?

Get ticket, appeal, appeal refused, appeal to TPT.  TPT produces the amazing decision that it is OK for a bus to drive in a bus lane.

As an industry professional, tell me:
Can you park in a marked parking bay displaying double yellow lines with both a "P" sign and a "no parking at any time" sign?
Title: Re: F*ck POPLA, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 22 October, 2013, 06:31:45 PM
Welcome to the gang goody2shoes! I'll extend you the courtesy of being thought of as a parking professional since I know little of you so far. We have come across some professionals in the past, most notably a fine gentleman by the name of Hakim Berkani who was managed out of the job he loved by his filthy weasel managers at NSL because he objected to unlawful ticket targets. More often than not, the industry is populated by weasels rather than professionals who seem to think that raking as much profit in by nefarious means is somehow linked to child safety. We did have one such weasel on here briefly who thought he was a bit of a goody two shoes. We tried to show him the error of his ways but he was adamant.

TOPPOP: Adam Ant - Goody Two Shoes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7OjNP-5oII#)
Title: Re: F*ck POPLA, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Post by: Pat Pending on 22 October, 2013, 09:15:35 PM
If the $cars outside schools reduce accidents then the FOI route will prove this, I would not hold your breath waiting for a response in your favour of the $camera cars though. The only thing that will have increased is the revenue gained by issuing PCN's via a $car.
These vehicles should ONLY be used where it is not safe for a CEO to be used! this is not up for interpretation or discussion. The EA and contractors are abusing the motorists for financial gain, this is the type of indefensible abuse we are against. If it means that where we are successful the Council losses revenue TOUGH! we have had enough and we are not going to stop until these practices are a thing of the past.
It really does not matter whether you are a Contractor or local Authority if you abuse your position prepare to be abused!!!

Edit
When a CEO is issuing PCN's outside a school in uniform and being very conspicuous they are adding to road safety, whilst a very inconspicuous $camera car parked halfway up the road over a dropped kirb (as in Bexley) in between cars using a roof camera adds bugger all to road safety. In fact they can sit there and film an accident caused by an illegally parked vehicle. When the CEO in the car should have been more gainfully employed moving the vehicle on. :bashy: :bashy: :bashy:

Try and defend that if you can!

Title: Re: F*ck POPLA, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Post by: Pat Pending on 22 October, 2013, 09:21:01 PM
I will also post on here a rejection letter from a Local Authority Parking dept (NSL) which is sheer make up the rules as you go along. It is the type of abuse and total bollocks that we see every day. I will put it up as soon as the Adjudication has been dealt with.
Title: Re: F*ck POPLA, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Post by: Pat Pending on 22 October, 2013, 10:48:17 PM
I expect you'll bar me when I've finished I quite expect you to.

You are quite wrong we have no need to bar you as you are not personally our Target oops! there's that word again, funny how it keeps popping up when we are talking about the so called Parking Industry. <_>
Title: Re: F*ck POPLA, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Post by: Kill Switch on 22 October, 2013, 11:24:14 PM
Goody2shoes, welcome.
Park properly and you don't need to worry about getting a PCN.

Now that's not true either, is it?  As seen on Inside Out London, broadcast 23rd September 2013 I believe, where CEO's admit to issuing tickets to legally parked vehicles.  Now, it doesn't matter if one parking professional or every parking professional has done it, that "old saying" is complete bollocks, wouldn't you agree?

If you want a proper discussion we're here.
Title: Re: F*ck POPLA, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 23 October, 2013, 07:33:24 AM
If you want a proper discussion I'm here.

We know exactly where you are thank you Ms Webb.
Title: Re: F*ck POPLA, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 23 October, 2013, 07:36:33 AM
@goody2shoes

By the way, do you like apples?
Title: Re: F*ck POPLA, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Post by: Pat Pending on 23 October, 2013, 04:00:55 PM
 sing along now...... It's all gone quiet over there........ Was it something we said?
Title: Re: F*ck POPLA, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 23 October, 2013, 04:30:21 PM
If you want a proper discussion I'm here.


(http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/images/smilies/tumbleweed.gif)
Title: Re: F*ck POPLA, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Post by: jonesy on 23 October, 2013, 05:34:34 PM
 :-XHi Goody2shoes..............zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz :-X :-X :-X
Title: Re: F*ck POPLA, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 24 October, 2013, 07:47:10 AM
NEXT!


(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/missing.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
Title: Re: F*ck POPLA, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Post by: Pat Pending on 24 October, 2013, 10:31:17 PM
Oh look a so called" Parking Proffesional" or as we call them PARKING WEASELS
Come on Goody2Shoes try and justify this!  :bashy: :bashy: :bashy: :bashy:

or are the notomob Parking Weasels scared of a different viewpoint?  <_>

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-24653390 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-24653390)
Title: Re: F*ck POPLA, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 25 October, 2013, 01:21:13 AM
I expect our weasel friend will be back at half-term, when the schools are shut.

(http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-animal-015.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons.php)(http://www.parking-net.com/Upload/Industry/34984/NSL.jpg)(http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-animal-014.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons.php)
Title: Re: F*ck POPLA, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Post by: goody2shoes on 25 October, 2013, 01:17:55 PM
No not asleep nor scared off, but hey you know with All Hallows approaching us blood suckers have quite a lot on, not to mention committees and motorists  to educate.  During the lull between Halloween and the Crimbo season (or as I prefer the Bar Humbug free for all) I shall also be off spending my well gotten gains on a warm and balmy holiday so please don’t think I am defeated, shy or snoozing, although sometimes some contributions from the less well educated of your members may be a bit sleep inducing as they can be repetitive.  See even weasels have a sense of humour though it is often lost dealing with lying cheating people who believe the rules don’t apply to them and no I don’t mean the Councillors or other parking colleagues but those who flout the rules and then bitch they’re hard done by.
I won’t defend the indefensible there are times when tickets are issued incorrectly that’s because humans are still ultimately responsible for pressing the keys. However in the case of the Good Samaritan how great the ticket was cancelled on appeal see the system works.  Now I know you will say it shouldn’t have happened and your right and I am sure the DVD evidence will have been rechecked again and if the accident is visible on the screen someone will be up for retraining.  I also know that at times the CCTV does not pick up the whole street scene and the incident may not have been within shot. Much as you hate CCTV have you never considered the benefits of having the correct evidence that clearly shows if a motorist has offended or not? CCTV is a better deterrent to poor parking than a patrolling officer, because motorists become more aware of the cameras over time.   They keep the costs of enforcement down, provide a safer working environment for the officers (as long as no madcap bikers are trying to harass them as they drive along the road, and yes in the early days I have seen video evidence of this recorded by industry colleagues), which is probably why static cameras are a preferred option.
Belplasca yes I agree as would most authorities it would be great to be able to deal with those dangerous driving practices we all see at schools but don’t forget the Councils can only deal with offences that they have the Government given powers to do so.   Personally some of the things I have seen one where the car didn’t slow and didn’t stop before the child was shoved out comes to mind for that one I could cheerfully have crushed the car and the driver never would have held a licence again.  But no doubt some activist would be on a web site saying no harm was done!!
The BBCs programme would not have been good television if it hadn’t had someone saying we had targets, we are threatened with the sack etc.  The Statutory Guidance is clear that Authorities should be able to forecast likely income and expenditure for budgetary reasons.  Many authorities have been operating their parking services for several years and it is the historical data that is used to estimate the likely income from parking charges, the necessary levels of enforcement and associated costs.
Good enforcement managers will know how many tickets are likely to be issued based on that information.  Officers are monitored for performance based on this information and on the performance of other colleagues patrolling the same beats on the same weekdays.  There are many reasons for under performance, some is the beat has become compliant, some is the officer has become lazy or complacent or sometimes afraid of the area, all issues that have to be explored and may need further action be it disciplinary, retraining, welfare support, or changes to the patrol areas and the frequency of visits. 
Sorry if I haven’t responded to all but must now go bats to feed and broomsticks to ready before the big event. 
Title: Re: F*ck POPLA, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 25 October, 2013, 03:49:49 PM
No not asleep nor scared off, but hey you know with All Hallows approaching us blood suckers have quite a lot on, not to mention committees and motorists  to educate.  During the lull between Halloween and the Crimbo season (or as I prefer the Bar Humbug free for all) I shall also be off spending my well gotten gains on a warm and balmy holiday so please don’t think I am defeated, shy or snoozing, although sometimes some contributions from the less well educated of your members may be a bit sleep inducing as they can be repetitive.  See even weasels have a sense of humour though it is often lost dealing with lying cheating people who believe the rules don’t apply to them and no I don’t mean the Councillors or other parking colleagues but those who flout the rules and then bitch they’re hard done by.
I won’t defend the indefensible there are times when tickets are issued incorrectly that’s because humans are still ultimately responsible for pressing the keys. However in the case of the Good Samaritan how great the ticket was cancelled on appeal see the system works.  Now I know you will say it shouldn’t have happened and your right and I am sure the DVD evidence will have been rechecked again and if the accident is visible on the screen someone will be up for retraining.  I also know that at times the CCTV does not pick up the whole street scene and the incident may not have been within shot. Much as you hate CCTV have you never considered the benefits of having the correct evidence that clearly shows if a motorist has offended or not? CCTV is a better deterrent to poor parking than a patrolling officer, because motorists become more aware of the cameras over time.   They keep the costs of enforcement down, provide a safer working environment for the officers (as long as no madcap bikers are trying to harass them as they drive along the road, and yes in the early days I have seen video evidence of this recorded by industry colleagues), which is probably why static cameras are a preferred option.
Belplasca yes I agree as would most authorities it would be great to be able to deal with those dangerous driving practices we all see at schools but don’t forget the Councils can only deal with offences that they have the Government given powers to do so.   Personally some of the things I have seen one where the car didn’t slow and didn’t stop before the child was shoved out comes to mind for that one I could cheerfully have crushed the car and the driver never would have held a licence again.  But no doubt some activist would be on a web site saying no harm was done!!
The BBCs programme would not have been good television if it hadn’t had someone saying we had targets, we are threatened with the sack etc.  The Statutory Guidance is clear that Authorities should be able to forecast likely income and expenditure for budgetary reasons.  Many authorities have been operating their parking services for several years and it is the historical data that is used to estimate the likely income from parking charges, the necessary levels of enforcement and associated costs.
Good enforcement managers will know how many tickets are likely to be issued based on that information.  Officers are monitored for performance based on this information and on the performance of other colleagues patrolling the same beats on the same weekdays.  There are many reasons for under performance, some is the beat has become compliant, some is the officer has become lazy or complacent or sometimes afraid of the area, all issues that have to be explored and may need further action be it disciplinary, retraining, welfare support, or changes to the patrol areas and the frequency of visits. 
Sorry if I haven’t responded to all but must now go bats to feed and broomsticks to ready before the big event.

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

@goody2shoes

These "madcap bikers" that you saw video of allegedly harassing $car operators? Were they members of the No To Mob?
Title: Re: F*ck POPLA, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Post by: goody2shoes on 25 October, 2013, 04:57:49 PM
Yes it was but it was when the Mob was very much in it's infancy and hadn't quite perfected the art of following without causing fear.  The drivers of the cctv cars are more used to being followed now as well and know you mean no harm but I am sure you don't/didn't  realise how terrifying if was originally for the vehicle operators to be followed by mask wearing men on bikes that were getting to close.
Title: Re: F*ck POPLA, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 25 October, 2013, 05:05:28 PM
@goody2shoes

So it would have been in Westminster then? <_>
Title: Re: F*ck POPLA, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Post by: goody2shoes on 25 October, 2013, 05:19:31 PM
Can't think it would do my career much good if I confirm or deny any specific place that I have worked  :-ev-:
Title: Re: F*ck POPLA, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 25 October, 2013, 05:27:58 PM
Never mind. It was worth a try. ;)

So anyway, please remind us of exactly how many NTM members were ever arrested or cautioned following the alleged harassment?
Title: Re: F*ck POPLA, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Post by: goody2shoes on 25 October, 2013, 05:50:45 PM
I could only speak for the places I have worked and that would give my id away.  I do know in some places the police have been involved but i don't recall any charges.  of course believe it or not no one minds the schunts that's fine so long as you realise that when you wind up the public when you leave the site they remain stirred up and at times get aggressive with the officers that are left on scene.  But as has been said before I may not agree with your point of view but I would defend to the death your right to express it do schunt away after all no one parks illegally and therefore the objective is met, the boroughs wouldn't mind having an officer on every corner telling people not to park, but they are not allowed to fund parking operations from the council tax.
Title: Re: F*ck POPLA, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Post by: Belplasca on 26 October, 2013, 08:08:29 AM
they are not allowed to fund parking operations from the council tax.

That's interesting.

I thought that the council could fund any of their services from the council tax.

Perhaps you are indicating that parking is no longer seen by councils as a service but rather as a revenue generator?

Whatever. But, perhaps you could back up that statement with the relevant regulations?

(I understood that general council services could not be funded from the "accidental" income (the "surplus") from parking services, which are "ring-fenced" for use on transport expenditure... Have you just got it the wrong way round?)

Bob
Title: Re: F*ck POPLA, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Post by: DastardlyDick on 26 October, 2013, 11:45:58 AM
I think what goody2shoes is trying to say is that Parking Operations must be self funding - or at least that's what a Council told me when Enforcement was requested on a road where I used to live.
Title: Re: F*ck POPLA, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Post by: Belplasca on 26 October, 2013, 12:04:03 PM
I think what goody2shoes is trying to say is that Parking Operations must be self funding - or at least that's what a Council told me when Enforcement was requested on a road where I used to live.

Hopefully, Goody2shoes will be able to back up the claim.

But the provision of parking facilities is just like any other service provided by a council. If the electors are happy for the cost to come out of the council tax, they re-elect the councilors.

And Councils have a duty to provide that service. As far as I know (and I'm happy to be proved wrong!) the council can fund that provision in any way it sees fit. Clearly, it is desirable for the service to be self-funding, But I don't think the law prescribes that.

However, as we all know, Councils are allowed to use any small "surplus" from the charges for parking services ONLY for transport related services.

The simple fact that there is provision for the "surplus" indicated that it is seen as only a possibility and not a certainty, which reinforces my belief that there is no absolute requirement for parking services to be self-funding...

Bob
Title: Re: F*ck POPLA, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 26 October, 2013, 03:55:01 PM
I do know in some places the police have been involved but i don't recall any charges.


Yes. We have had many a chat with some very nice policemen, all of whom without exception have been satisfied that we were not harassing the $car operators and all of whom without exception were satisfied that we were going about our lawful business.

However, that can't be said of one particular parking manager who lied to the cops in order to try to get us in trouble. (click on link below) and another who threatened a member of the public with physical violence, (click on second link below) and yet others who committed an act of physical violence on three members of the public (click on third link below)

http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=1770.0 (http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=1770.0)

of course believe it or not no one minds the schunts that's fine so long as you realise that when you wind up the public when you leave the site they remain stirred up and at times get aggressive with the officers that are left on scene.


So how is that our fault?

do schunt away after all no one parks illegally and therefore the objective is met,


So why do the vast majority of council contractors (NSL in Waltham Forest have been ordered to remain on street by Karen Naylor and are the only exception I know of) tell their drivers to either try to lose us or return to base?

of course believe it or not no one minds the schunts


Could have fooled me.

http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,2885.0.html (http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,2885.0.html)

http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,2725.0.html (http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,2725.0.html)





Title: Re: F*ck POPLA, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Post by: Kill Switch on 26 October, 2013, 07:54:24 PM

Could have fooled me.

[url]http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,2885.0.html[/url] ([url]http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,2885.0.html[/url])

[url]http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,2725.0.html[/url] ([url]http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,2725.0.html[/url])


Try this one as well.

http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,2751.msg21512.html#msg21512 (http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,2751.msg21512.html#msg21512)
Title: Re: F*ck POPLA, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 26 February, 2014, 04:22:33 PM
I wonder what happened to goody2shoes? <_>

She promised she'd be back, but didn't bother for some reason.

Was it something we said? ;D
Title: Re: F*ck POPLA, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 26 February, 2014, 04:38:10 PM
The BBCs programme would not have been good television if it hadn’t had someone saying we had targets……………………..


goody was a fairly new member and posting irrefutable evidence that there were in fact targets was a little insensitive and, quite frankly, rude. I remember when this place was very welcoming to new members. Ahh, just kidding goody. Come on back. We promise to play nicely. Bring your mates, we'll have a laugh.

(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-music037.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)