Nuxx:4e33428e$0$2542$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin2!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!newsfeed.eweka.nl!feeder3.eweka.nl!81.171.88.15.MISMATCH!eweka.nl!lightspeed.eweka.nl!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!shaftesbury.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <4e33428e$0$2542$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: "Man jailed for hitting Bristol parking attendant with car" Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 00:30:19 +0100 References:  <4e302ae3$0$2495$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>  <4e31791e$0$2497$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk> <826541e9-6a6d-48a4-acab-fc77324d135f@o18g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>   Lines: 66 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To:  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: d9e9d2a0.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=lLKo?ocP9k@nigOT2@WBlHnok4Z\d41\0UM[KDEn On Jul 29, 2:42 pm, Abo  wrote: >> On 29/07/2011 13:41, Simon Mason wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jul 28, 3:58 pm, Nuxx Bar wrote: >> >>>>> Surely, all the driver had to do was to park in the correct parking >>>>> place, walk the extra few yards and not abuse designated spots for >>>>> other drivers? >> >>>> The law is the law. Therefore road markings on private land are >>>> meaningless, he can park anywhere he likes there and he doesn't have to >>>> pay any "fine", end of. That's what the law says, and it's not for us >>>> to question why, remember? >> >>> QUOTE: >>> "The Civil Courts in England have deemed that wheelclamping on private >>> land is lawful, providing certain conditions relating to signing and >>> the release fee are fulfilled." >>> "If you see and are satisified with the licence, the release fee is >>> reasonable (e.g.up to around £130) and the signs were clear you should >>> pay up." >> >>> http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/reports/clamping-on-private-land.... >> >> Different kettle of fish though; your car is immobilised (or towed away) >> and only given back upon payment of the release fee (note the wording, >> not a fine...). >> >> In the case you posted, the driver could have merely taken the ticket, >> driven off and just ignored it. There is no legal recourse for ASDA >> other than perhaps through the small claims court, and would cost them >> more than the 'fine' to lodge a claim with no guarantee of a favourable >> outcome so they probably just wouldn't bother.- > > Yes, but according to Nuxx Bar, you can just park with gay abandon on > anyone else's land and there is nothing the land owner can do about > it. > That is plainly not true.

It's true that if an appropriate sign is put up, then criminal scum are shamefully allowed to clamp cars which aren't permitted to park on private land, then extort hundreds of pounds from their drivers. Thank god that particular racket is going to become illegal soon (though no doubt you will mourn its passing, not that you're anti-motorist).

However, AFAIK, the actual markings on the tarmac make no difference in that case, and they certainly make no difference at places where clamping isn't in force (e.g. ASDA). Double yellow lines on private land, for example, are completely meaningless legally, as are parking bay dividers, and "disabled" and "parent/child" markings. It isn't defined anywhere in law what those markings mean when they're on private land, so they can't possibly have legal force (especially when you consider that different car parks have different variants of signs, markings, pictures, etc).

So, the "parent/child" spaces in ASDA have no legal meaning, and since "the law is the law", I'm sure you have no problem with drivers parking in them from that standpoint. Unless, as already suggested, you're only so inflexible about "the law" when it can be used against drivers...?

Oh, and no-one except old people ever uses "gay" in that sense anymore. :-p