New BBC TV programme on PCN's

[EDW2000]

They (BBC) were filming in my local cafe in Camden (small world - the producer knows Graeme of this parish)

Broadcast on Sept 9th?

[Pat Pending]

Ahh........ many people claim to know or have met Graeme, indeed there's a man works down our chip shop claims he's Graeme. I  have actually met him once, and I possess a lock of his hair!  It's gonna fetch big bucks on fleabay you mark my words. 

[EDW2000]

they were filming this notorious money trap


http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2011/jun/grafton-roads-%E2%80%98cash-cow%E2%80%99-street-camera-rakes-%C2%A360000-month

[Ewan Hoosami]

Ahh........ many people claim to know or have met Graeme...........

I know a bloke who claims to have met Graeme. I know this meeting never took place though because at the time it was supposed to have happened, Graeme was out $chunting and Kelvin was in a lavatory in Haywards Heath with a copy of parking news.

[The Bald Eagle]

they were filming this notorious money trap


http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2011/jun/grafton-roads-%E2%80%98cash-cow%E2%80%99-street-camera-rakes-%C2%A360000-month

Hmmmmm. That article is dated 2nd June 2011.

Councillor Sue Vincent described the complex set of signposts at the en­trance to Grafton Road as ridiculous” and said she would be taking action immediately.

Obviously Councillor Vincent's idea of doing something "immediately" differs from mine.

[EDW2000]

After my endless emails they are doing a consultation about new scheme .




Case Reference:   2110519282
Appellant:   Mr Robert Leader
Authority:   Camden
VRM:   R242KDL
PCN:   CU30971816
Contravention Date:   27 Jul 2011
Contravention Time:   16:00
Contravention Location:   Grafton Road NW5
Penalty Amount:   £130.00
Contravention:   Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibition on certain types of vehicle
Decision Date:   05 Dec 2011
Adjudicator:   Anthony Chan
Appeal Decision:   Allowed
Direction:   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons:   It was common ground that appropriate signage indicating the prohibition to vehicular traffic at certain times was placed at the beginning of the restriction. The Appellant argued however that by the time he saw those  signs, he had no option but to go into the restricted area because of a lack of advance warning signs.

The Authority produced photographs of advance warning signs.  There was however no evidence as to where these signs were and therefore no evidence that the Appellant must have driven past them.

I cannot be satisfied that the contravention occurred. I am allowing the appeal.

[The Bald Eagle]

I think we all may have missed this. Fortunately Graeme didn't.

Take a very close look at Kelvin's comments.

[Pat Pending]

KR  seems to be speaking to the truth for once I  wonder how that happened! 

[Ewan Hoosami]

[2b1ask1]

Very good; I must have been half asleep to have missed that, a bit like motorist at the honey trap!