[align=left:pi5frq6t][font=arial:pi5frq6t] --- what the F*^K are WCC doing with eleven of them
[/l][/l]
So I can see that more drivers will need to be recruited soon to replace the ones soon to be dismissed for flouting No Entry signs and One Way streets and putting the general public at considerable risk!!!we have had 5 drivers sacked since 12th Feb down in Medway! W:T:F:
Go get em MG, why should they think they can try to enforce rules with the public and have total disregard for the same rules for themselves. W:T:F:
Do you mean the NoToMob have had 5 drivers sacked, or is that the Royal (Medway) sense of the word we?
I don't think we want drivers thinking that our aim is to get them the sack, do we?
Heres the FOI request Ive been waiting for, which according to Medway Council, this allows their CCTV cars to park on Double yellow etcAfter reviewing this FOI, they didnt actually answer my first question as pointed out to me, so I have requested a internal review.
@have a look BH
[url]http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/road_traffic_certificates_orders#incoming-173854[/url] ([url]http://http[/url]://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/road_traffic_certificates_orders#incoming-173854)
Let`s see what comes back from the DfT as one way or the other we will know what we are dealing with!
Really interesting in the news today that the government is employing someone to see why shoppers are deserting local High Streets in droves...Yes it is!! ... I spoke to most of the shops at top end of Chatham High St today, they " hate" the Scar, and there takings are down since 2008 funny! that's when the Scars arrived down here... Im going digging....i ho i ho :-ev-:
Wouldn't have anything to do with over-the-top, revenue driven parking enforcement, would it?
Bob
[font=georgia:1px8r7gg]"[/font:1px8r7gg]In regards to t[/font:1px8r7gg][font=georgia:1px8r7gg]he quote referred to[/font:1px8r7gg][font=georgia:1px8r7gg], it [/font:1px8r7gg][font=georgia:1px8r7gg]is [/font:1px8r7gg][font=georgia:1px8r7gg]from [/font:1px8r7gg][font=georgia:1px8r7gg]the chief adjudicator for [/font:1px8r7gg][font=georgia:1px8r7gg]the Traffic Penalty Tribunal which covers [/font:1px8r7gg][font=georgia:1px8r7gg]England and Wales [/font:1px8r7gg][font=georgia:1px8r7gg]but [/font:1px8r7gg][font=georgia:1px8r7gg]exclud[/font:1px8r7gg][font=georgia:1px8r7gg]es [/font:1px8r7gg][font=georgia:1px8r7gg]London hence the reference to Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO's) which do not exist in London. [/font:1px8r7gg]The [/font:1px8r7gg][/i][/u][font=georgia:1px8r7gg]C[/font:1px8r7gg][font=georgia:1px8r7gg]ouncil does not believe that any similar sentiment has been stated by the chief adjudicator for London.[/font:1px8r7gg]"
[/font:1px8r7gg][/i]Maybe this need clarification?[/font:1px8r7gg]
Maybe this need clarification?[/font:1px8r7gg]
Oh gawd, if you insist...
Dear Lee
It is agreed that authorities are issued Traffic Management Orders (TMOs) as opposed to Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs). Please tell me where in the primary legislation (The Traffic management Act 2004) it provides for authorities to give exemptions for CCTV enforcement cars under TMOs. In the absence of such evidence, your assertions are groundless and the CCTV cars have no legal exemptions from the usual regulations.
Even if it were a valid argument, you say exemptions only apply where “the vehicle is being used for fire brigade or police purpose or, not being a passenger vehicle[, is being used in the service of a local authority in pursuance of statutory powers”. I think it is safe to assume that the Toyoya IQ is a passenger car, unless you can provide evidence to the contrary. Thus, it does not qualify as an Exempted Vehicle.
In the light of the above, I believe that it would be very wise to ensure the MEVs are parked legally and not where prohibitions are in place for public safety and free traffic flow.
Regards
Bruce