# "No overnight parking" - Is this legally enforceable on the public highway?



## plugus maximus (Apr 26, 2011)

Can anyone produce evidence it is? 

I work in the highways industry and to my knowledge you need a Traffic Regulation Order to enforce parking restrictions. These are complimented by signs and markings on the highway.

I don't believe this to be true of the signs were talking about.

Has anyone had a parking ticket?


----------



## vwalan (Apr 26, 2011)

hi, to my knowledge i agree a traffic regulation order could be needed. also the order as to be named on the sign. also a list of other things regarding the regs on the reverse of the sign. most councils and highways dont follow the traffic signs directive so many signs are illegal. i personally have challenged the dorset police highways etc over a sign. having looked further i now realise authority doesny understand their own rules . we have to make a stand and make them obey the law. we get punished even if they are illegal otherwise. many yellow lines etc arent the correct width or even have permission to be there . never mind ,the overnight parking signs. its really just a joke. as for others thinking its anarchy well putting up illegal signs cant be correct. they fine us on a personal level, they get to refund our money and never get punished . many innocent people could have lost their licences because authority broke its rules .but nobody in authority gets punished for the mistake. we are almost in a police state as it is. the public as to stand up for itself now isthe tiome to start. cheers alan.


----------



## Deleted member 2636 (Apr 26, 2011)

vwalan said:


> many yellow lines etc arent the correct width or even have permission to be there



I'm very interested in this comment. We have had a rash of very narrow yellow and double yellow lines appear in our high street. They seem to be very narrow compared to what I have been used to seeing over the years - any ideas or suggestions would be helpful


----------



## John H (Apr 26, 2011)

plugus maximus said:


> I work in the highways industry and to my knowledge you need a Traffic Regulation Order to enforce parking restrictions. These are complimented by signs and markings on the highway.


 
You have answered your own question. The highways authority (the Secretary of State in the case of trunk roads and, usually, the County Council for other roads) can pass Traffic Regulation Orders and enforce parking restrictions accordingly. However, as others have pointed out, not all signs are backed up by such orders and are therefore unenforceable. If you are unclear about a particualr sign then look up the relevant council/government website to see whether there is an order.


----------



## Pollik (Apr 26, 2011)

Might get some info from a site like this Appeal Your Parking Ticket, Parking Tickets Parking Fines or this http://www.penaltychargenotice.co.uk/links/drivers-associations--motoring-campaign-groups/


----------



## plugus maximus (Apr 26, 2011)

baloothebear said:


> I'm very interested in this comment. We have had a rash of very narrow yellow and double yellow lines appear in our high street. They seem to be very narrow compared to what I have been used to seeing over the years - any ideas or suggestions would be helpful


 

They will be in a conservation area and are permitted. The width and shade of yellow lines can be varied. In conservation areas, narrower and paler lines are often used to be less intrusive.


----------



## plugus maximus (Apr 26, 2011)

vwalan said:


> hi, to my knowledge i agree a traffic regulation order could be needed. also the order as to be named on the sign. also a list of other things regarding the regs on the reverse of the sign. most councils and highways dont follow the traffic signs directive so many signs are illegal. i personally have challenged the dorset police highways etc over a sign. having looked further i now realise authority doesny understand their own rules . we have to make a stand and make them obey the law. we get punished even if they are illegal otherwise. many yellow lines etc arent the correct width or even have permission to be there . never mind ,the overnight parking signs. its really just a joke. as for others thinking its anarchy well putting up illegal signs cant be correct. they fine us on a personal level, they get to refund our money and never get punished . many innocent people could have lost their licences because authority broke its rules .but nobody in authority gets punished for the mistake. we are almost in a police state as it is. the public as to stand up for itself now isthe tiome to start. cheers alan.



That is not correct. For a speed limit sign the sign must comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions and displayed in accordance with the Traffic Signs Manual. There is no need for anything else on the back of it.Except the sign should be grey backed.

Parking restrictions have to have carriageway markings to my knowledge so places like this: Google Maps I don't see how they can be enforced. In fact I think they are ignored.


----------



## Guernsey Donkey (Apr 26, 2011)

*Disabled*

Talking about double yellows - with a disables blue badge I am told you can park for up to three hours on them, is this correct. :hammer:


----------



## donkey too (Apr 26, 2011)

[Parking restrictions have to have carriageway markings to my knowledge so places like this: Google Maps I don't see how they can be enforced. In fact I think they are ignored.[/QUOTE]

You will notice that the sign in the picture is sighted on the 'lay by' not on the carriage way. Lay bys are not part of the public highway. They are in effect private land owned by the local authority. and they can put whatever signs they want on them. Also on a small lay by like this one it could be argued that access/egress of it would be a danger to other traffic.
I agree that traffic/parking laws are a nightmare and it is the one committee that I never want to sit on at Council.
I personally just stop where I feel it is safe to do so and if asked to move on then do so unless I am over tired:sleep-040: (or the person asking is stroppy) then I ask for them to get an eviction order to move me, and go back to bed. As long as you are not causing an obstruction or are a danger to other users they usually leave you alone. And the police wont be bothered.


----------



## donkey too (Apr 26, 2011)

Guernsey Donkey said:


> Talking about double yellows - with a disables blue badge I am told you can park for up to three hours on them, is this correct. :hammer:


 
You can park for three hours using a valid blue badge, but you should not stay in the vehicle. The badge is to allow the badge holder to get to within thirty metres of their destination. However you should be careful that you are not causing an obstruction. Now here is or can be the down side of that. only the policeman on duty can say whether or not you are causing an obstruction. 
The Blue badge rules are very complicated. for instance a driver with a badge cannot sit in the car using the badge while his/her partner/passenger get out to shop etc., An able driver carrying a badge holding passenger canot use the badge to park. they should drop the passenger off and then park in a normal way.
Of coarse we all know this don't happen as the police people never check. they see a badge and walk on by. That is why Blue badges on the black market in Cambridge fetch upwards of 600 quid. A bargain as it gets free parking in the city which would normally cost over 25 pound a day. it also get you free tolls. London emissions charge etc.,
Interestingly. It is against the law to clamp a car displaying a valid blue badge.
Saying all that I use my badge in car parks as it gives me free all day parking in most and then I can stay the night as well. More importantly it gives me a wider space.


----------



## Tco (Apr 26, 2011)

*Pugus Maximus*

I seem to remember a couple of years ago, some from the Highways Authority in Scotland cinfirmed that the "No overnight parking" signs on the A9 (in particular as that was the nature of the question) were not legally enforceable. So you may be right.

But of course this does not necessarily apply to others.


----------



## maureenandtom (Apr 26, 2011)

This is probably the one you want.

http://www.wildcamping.co.uk/forums/general-chat/6797-good-news-no-overnight-parking.html


----------



## VeeDub (Apr 26, 2011)

Tco said:


> I seem to remember a couple of years ago, some from the Highways Authority in Scotland cinfirmed that the "No overnight parking" signs on the A9 (in particular as that was the nature of the question) were not legally enforceable. So you may be right.
> 
> But of course this does not necessarily apply to others.


 
Hmmmmm.... and just to enforce that theory  - Us Truckers park up in Lay-Bys every night of the week (as opposed to forking out £20 odd quid in parking fees for a sleepless night on a noisy Motorway Service Station).  As odd as it may sound, dare I suggest that WE are the original 'Wilders'  ...  ?  Ergo - What is the difference between a forty-footer and an MH? If you HAVE to park up then So Be It!! ???


----------



## vwalan (Apr 26, 2011)

i still park up on the laybys .whats the differance between mine and a forty footer .well several feet. trouble is too many make it look like a campsite .chairs etc .specially those daft yellow wedge things . just park sensible is the answer . i very often travel with other truck campers we can fill quite a big area but most of the time its no probs. parking up i super market carparks for grub causes a bit of a stir sometimes . only payed for one parking place all winter. never used a camp site .we are tight gits . hee hee. saves the money for wine n beer.


----------



## Tco (Apr 27, 2011)

I agree with VeeDub and VWalan (are they related I wonder?) In fact in my trucking days (nightdriver) I had my regular stopping places for rest etc.  It is amazing just how much you might be observed however.

I regularly (every night) ran up the A6 towards Leicester from Kettering. Not usually much traffic about, but one night I was in an unmarked newish white boxvan. My regular Volvo was in for service, I got pulled up by the local copper. He wanted to know where,what, why, how etc. I told him I was on a regular run which I did every night. "Strange," says he, "I don't remember seeing this truck before."  I had never seen him clocking the traffic, I was not speeding, so you can see just how much of what you do is seen and noted.


----------



## Bigpeetee (Apr 27, 2011)

A traffic warden operated by the council cannot ticket you for parking on the single white line across the entrance to someones house. The police can do you for obstruction though.

Just had a winge to the head of highways, my last neighbour parked his van near a corner, local plod came round and asked that no-one parked near the corner as it caused an obstruction, he duly complied. Problem resolved.

The council are still proposing putting yellow lines on all corners (it's a staggered junction).

When told that problem had now gone away told me that the problem could reoccur therefore they were going to lay lines. I complained about the cost to the public.

I've given him a list of other problem areas where this happens and demand that all of these are looked at, including parking bays marked by the council that obstruct view of traffic.

I getting a very grumpy old man!!!!   Hee Hee


----------



## davesmiff (Apr 28, 2011)

*no sleeping between 11pm 8am*

Good morning all. New to the site and just can't stop reading it. I have hade a M/H for 4 Years and mostly wild camp. I have found this thread interesting and agree with the main comments.
 However as the first quetion states, has anyone any hard evidence of appealing against a ticket and won. I would feel rather stupid arguing with a warden saying you cant give me a ticket as it says so on  the w/camping web site. 
 Once when in Whitby I asked a local bobby what his point of view was. He said that parking on the front at the top of the hill near Jawbones ( no sleeping overnight between 11pm and 8am. sign) was not his problem. It is a council/highway rule, and he said how many council officials work between them times. nudge nudge, He also reiterated what we all think re parking in front of peoples houses or blocking hotel windows. Incidentally there was a large VW parked outside the front window of the hotel on the top. He said it had been there for 2 months and as yet they couldn't do owt about it. 
  This tale is all well and good like all anecdotes, but has anyone 
A.  had a ticket for ignoring that type of sign. 
B.  appealed a ticket perhaps on the ground that they were not asleep?

Thanks Dave


----------



## AndyC (Apr 28, 2011)

davesmiff said:


> Good morning all. New to the site and just can't stop reading it. I have hade a M/H for 4 Years and mostly wild camp. I have found this thread interesting and agree with the main comments.
> However as the first quetion states, has anyone any hard evidence of appealing against a ticket and won. I would feel rather stupid arguing with a warden saying you cant give me a ticket as it says so on  the w/camping web site.
> Once when in Whitby I asked a local bobby what his point of view was. He said that parking on the front at the top of the hill near Jawbones ( no sleeping overnight between 11pm and 8am. sign) was not his problem. It is a council/highway rule, and he said how many council officials work between them times. nudge nudge, He also reiterated what we all think re parking in front of peoples houses or blocking hotel windows. Incidentally there was a large VW parked outside the front window of the hotel on the top. He said it had been there for 2 months and as yet they couldn't do owt about it.
> This tale is all well and good like all anecdotes, but has anyone
> ...


If a no overnight parking sign is backed up with a clause in the local Traffic Regulation Orders then an appeal against a PCN for that offence is unlikely to succeed.

Local TROs often contain phrases like 'no sleeping, cooking or camping', I think it would be almost impossible to prove that anyone was sleeping so an appeal against a PCN for that offence might succeed.

One problem can be getting hold of the TROs, some local authorities have them available on their websites, and quite a lot are available here: Traffic Penalty Tribunal

Another issue is whether a parking condition which may be contained within a TRO, but is not in fact stated on any car park signage, is actually enforceable. I have been trying to get a definite answer to this for some time, without any success. If anyone has appealed a PCN in those circumstances I'd be very interested to hear about it!

Parking enforcement is generally not a Police matter, but there is of course no 'right' to park on any road and the Police can ask you to move if they consider you are causing an obstruction.

Incidentally a large No Overnight Parking sign has just appeared at a rural car park that we have used in the past. I have been making enquiries with the local authority concerned and discovered that there is nothing in the TROs which prevents overnight parking, the sign has been erected just as a deterrent.

AndyC


----------



## maureenandtom (Apr 28, 2011)

davesmiff said:


> . . .
> 
> This tale is all well and good like all anecdotes, but has anyone
> A.  had a ticket for ignoring that type of sign.
> ...


 
Yes, I had a PCN.   It was timed at just after midnight.   I disputed it and I won.  Car park signs were changed after I won.   You can read it up here:

http://www.wildcamping.co.uk/forums/general-chat/11681-long-mysterious-tale.html

Not everybody agreed with my actions.  There are many here who believe that you should obey signs like this without question.   I'm open to all opinions and I'd like yours too.

Tom


----------



## vwalan (Apr 28, 2011)

there are rules for putting up signs .it does seem authority dont hardly ever bother to follow the rules . but love to punish innocent people if they want. we have to monitor authority and make sure they get it right. usually i just wait and help others spank authority, best not to tell them when you spot their deliberate mistakes and beat them when they try to punish innocent folk. life is just a game of laughs.


----------



## maureenandtom (Apr 28, 2011)

Who guards the guardians?   *We *do.   _“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes”_ to the Ancient Romans.  It is not a new problem.

We all have to follow rules;  it's important.   It follows then it's even more important that the rule-makers make the rules in accordance with rules set down for them.  I express it badly but my meaning can easily be understood.  We give councils certain powers which we must not let them exceed.   

The council (AndyC, two posts above) have no legal right to erect a notice but they decide to erect a notice as a deterrent.   Other councils do the same.   

They have no business deciding to be a deterrent.   They will be told what to deter;  it is not their business to decide for themselves.

It is our business not to let them.


----------



## donkey too (Apr 29, 2011)

You could always say that you are a traveller/gypsy/tinker whatever. Then you will be left in peace while they take the matter before full council for a decision as to obtain a court order to have you removed, or not. That takes on average 10 working days. By which time you have had a very nice holiday and have packed up and returned home.:wave:


----------



## vwalan (Apr 29, 2011)

fortunately the same rules apply. if you are in a camper you are very similar to all three . i,m proud to be one of them. but lets not drag the travelling comunity down .equal rights for all .


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Apr 29, 2011)

Road traffic law

The following list can be found abbreviated throughout the Code. It is not intended to be a comprehensive guide, but a guide to some of the important points of law. For the precise wording of the law, please refer to the various Acts and Regulations (as amended) indicated in the Code. Abbreviations are listed below.

Most of the provisions apply on all roads throughout Great Britain, although there are some exceptions. The definition of a road in England and Wales is ‘any highway and any other road to which the public has access and includes bridges over which a road passes’ (RTA 1988 sect 192(1)). In Scotland, there is a similar definition which is extended to include any way over which the public have a right of passage (R(S)A 1984 sect 151(1)).  

The road user and the law : Directgov - Travel and transport

The Highway Code
The road user and the law

It is important to note that references to ‘road’ therefore generally include footpaths, bridleways and cycle tracks, and many roadways and driveways on private land (including many car parks). In most cases, the law will apply to them and there may be additional rules for particular paths or ways. Some serious driving offences, including drink-driving offences, also apply to all public places, for example public car parks.

The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002


----------



## AndyC (Apr 29, 2011)

John Thompson said:


> Road traffic law
> 
> The definition of a road in England and Wales is ‘any highway and any other road to which the public has access and includes bridges over which a road passes’ (RTA 1988 sect 192(1)).



I've seen that definition of a 'road' in the RTA too. It makes no sense at all! You can't say that the definition of a 'road' includes any 'road' to which the public has access - it's a completely circular argument 

I even asked the Department for Transport to explain it and they couldn't.

AndyC


----------



## donkey too (Apr 29, 2011)

vwalan said:


> fortunately the same rules apply. if you are in a camper you are very similar to all three . i,m proud to be one of them. but lets not drag the travelling comunity down .equal rights for all .


I agree equal rights for all. That also means that the travelling comunity should pay the same taxes as I do.
I am fed up with having to pay my share of picking up the clean up bills for these no good wasters.
Also if you are a normal hard working member of the public the police / authorities will move you on, but if from the travelling community they wont say a dicky to them.


----------



## maureenandtom (Apr 29, 2011)

John Thompson said:


> Road traffic law
> 
> The following list can be found abbreviated throughout the Code. It is not intended to be a comprehensive guide, but a guide to some of the important points of law. For the precise wording of the law, please refer to the various Acts and Regulations (as amended) indicated in the Code. Abbreviations are listed below.
> 
> ...



John,

I'm sure I could read through all that and make some sense of it and you write knowledgeably but I haven't the faintest idea why you wrote it; what you're responding to.  Are you answering a question; providing information, maybe, which will answer a question?

This is in response to what exactly?  What am I supposed to be looking up?  Why do you want me to read that stuff?   What am I looking for?


----------



## vwalan (Apr 29, 2011)

hi donkey too. we all have the same taxes .there is no different system for ethnic,religous or   races . tax evasion is a crime ,tax avoidance is legal. if you know of evasion its up to you. i have no knowkedge of police etc treating anybody differently. but i do have personal experiance of incorrect signage. and have gone the whole way through magistrates and crown courts and had it took further to the house of lords to get the authorities to repay money stolen by them and driving licences having points removed .i have no problem with alternative lifestyles and am always amazed at the hostility to alternative lifestyles. i,m sorry if i dont have the sameviews as you .


----------



## John H (Apr 30, 2011)

Any council has the right to determine how the land under its control is used. If they consider that to do their job properly they need to restrict certain parking areas to their employees then they can do so. As individuals, we have no rights to do what we like on publicly-owned land; the use of that land is detemined by us as a group and we exercise that right by electing people to decide the rules on our behalf. If you don't like the rules then you have the right to elect somebody else. If you are in the minority then you have to accept that - or stand for election yourself and try to get the majority to agree with you.


----------



## John H (Apr 30, 2011)

maureenandtom said:


> Who guards the guardians?   *We *do.   _“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes”_ to the Ancient Romans.  It is not a new problem.
> 
> We all have to follow rules;  it's important.   It follows then it's even more important that the rule-makers make the rules in accordance with rules set down for them.  I express it badly but my meaning can easily be understood.  We give councils certain powers which we must not let them exceed.
> 
> ...


 
I absolutely agree with your first two paragraphs but councils do have a legal right to erect notices as a deterrent. What they don't have a right to do is issue a fine if you disobey such a notice that doesn't have the backing of an official order - but they are perfectly within their rights to put up the notice. Also, it is their business to decide - that is what we elect them to do. But I agree that it is very much our business to keep an eye on them!


----------



## maureenandtom (Apr 30, 2011)

John H.

A misleading notice is a misleading notice.   Not allowed in normal life.   Even less allowed by those trusted to make and keep our rules.  They have to be right.   If councillors and employees  feel  permitted to erect misleading notices at taxpayers expense then they ought to be ashamed.  Such a notice described above is a fraud committed on its victims, road users.  It is a fraud upon the people who pay for it, taxpayers.  It is a fraud upon our employees who come to believe themselves above normal behaviour.  It is mostly a fraud because we believe you when you lie.

This is what happens when people with such views are not held to account.

Immigration officer sacked for putting wife he didn't like on terror watch list - mirror.co.uk

Amusing. Eh?   An acquaintance of mine said, “I wonder how much he would take to do it to my bugger.”   Yes, how much would he have taken?  Not so amusing then, is it?

It follows if you think you have the right - “How much would you take to put up a misleading notice for a mate?”  Make it look like it's official, it's right, it's from the council?   Not everybody can be trusted like we trust you.

People with power have to be watched.


----------



## John H (Apr 30, 2011)

maureenandtom said:


> John H.
> 
> A misleading notice is a misleading notice.   Not allowed in normal life.   Even less allowed by those trusted to make and keep our rules.  They have to be right.   If councillors and employees  feel  permitted to erect misleading notices at taxpayers expense then they ought to be ashamed.  Such a notice described above is a fraud committed on its victims, road users.  It is a fraud upon the people who pay for it, taxpayers.  It is a fraud upon our employees who come to believe themselves above normal behaviour.  It is mostly a fraud because we believe you when you lie.
> 
> ...


 
A bit over the top, don't you think? And your "example" is hardly comparable. However, as I said before, I agree with your final sentence.


----------



## bigpieeater (Apr 30, 2011)

maureenandtom said:


> John H.
> 
> A misleading notice is a misleading notice.   Not allowed in normal life.   Even less allowed by those trusted to make and keep our rules.  They have to be right.   If councillors and employees  feel  permitted to erect misleading notices at taxpayers expense then they ought to be ashamed.  Such a notice described above is a fraud committed on its victims, road users.  It is a fraud upon the people who pay for it, taxpayers.  It is a fraud upon our employees who come to believe themselves above normal behaviour.  It is mostly a fraud because we believe you when you lie.
> 
> ...


 
....and lets face it....the 'leftie' Daily Mirror would always report the truth!!!
They print crap, crap that people waft around shouting "Look at this, it must all be true because the Mirror says so"
..and people like you, JOHN H want us all to believe it. The only thing I would ever believe in, printed in the Mirror, is the day and date!!


----------



## coolasluck (Apr 30, 2011)

The tabloids dont have any allegance,they are always backing the party who is in current power.Imagine if the BNP were elected


----------



## John H (Apr 30, 2011)

bigpieeater said:


> .
> They print crap, crap that people waft around shouting "Look at this, it must all be true because the Mirror says so"
> ..and people like you, JOHN H want us all to believe it.


 
Once again you fail to read what I write before criticising me. The quote from the Daily Mirror was produced by Maureen and Tom - I was the one saying it was completely irrelevant to the current debate. It is taken as read that you will disagree with whatever I say so there's no need to make a fool of yourself by getting what I say wrong.


----------



## Pollik (Apr 30, 2011)

Hi Donkeytoo

I can tell a story of a traveller who moved into a house.  The neighbours saw the caravan - over the next couple of years, both children were were bullied at school and the parents and the windows of the house regularly broken.

They moved out.

Next time, they moved in 'in stealth' and had no problems at all.  However, when another that traveller family moved into the area, the tenants committee came out with all sorts of racist comments...which was rather ironic, considering that my friend was chair of the committee at the time.  She chose to 'out' herself.


----------



## bigpieeater (Apr 30, 2011)

John H said:


> Once again you fail to read what I write before criticising me. The quote from the Daily Mirror was produced by Maureen and Tom - I was the one saying it was completely irrelevant to the current debate. It is taken as read that you will disagree with whatever I say so there's no need to make a fool of yourself by getting what I say wrong.


 
Still, I bet you are an avid reader!!


----------



## bigpieeater (Apr 30, 2011)

John H said:


> Once again you fail to read what I write before criticising me. The quote from the Daily Mirror was produced by Maureen and Tom - I was the one saying it was completely irrelevant to the current debate. It is taken as read that you will disagree with whatever I say so there's no need to make a fool of yourself by getting what I say wrong.



Yeah, I think you're right, I will probably disagree with everything you say 'cos most of what I have seen written by you is drivel.

Let's get back to the topic, there is a risk of our dislike of one another taking over another perfectly good thread.


----------



## Pollik (Apr 30, 2011)

<Here we go again.  :sad:>


----------



## bigpieeater (Apr 30, 2011)

Pollik said:


> <Here we go again.  :sad:>


 
Oh no we don't, I am not getting any further involved with him on this thread


----------



## davesmiff (May 1, 2011)

Thanks for the replies, I am too of the opinion that if you are expected to follow the rules, (which I generally do ) then the people charged with making the rules should play by the rules themselves. The hard part is finding out which rules they have produced are genuine. I must say, I don't like the idea of 'deterent signs' sneaky.......

Thanks one and all for the replies

Dave


----------



## maureenandtom (May 1, 2011)

No, Polly, I am on the verge of discovering something vital to me.  At last, maybe, an answer I'd love to have from somebody with knowledge and experience.

JohnH,  thank you for your reply which I would like you to expand upon.  You know very well that I am furious that those in authority will mislead me about the powers they legally have.  I will make that more clear.  This is my view on this.   I am opposed to authorities putting up restrictive notices which have no validity.  Now my view is clear, yes?

I know you disagree.  You say authorities are justified in putting up notices as a deterrent when they have no powers to back them up.  You have said so above and I believe you mean it.

I will use the three examples already quoted in this thread.

AndyC's example above.   The No Parking sign he refers to has no backing in the TRO he refers to.  Let us believe he speaks the truth.  As I do.  As you do.  As we all do on here.

The example in this link.   http://www.wildcamping.co.uk/forums/general-chat/6797-good-news-no-overnight-parking.html The authority responsible for this highway have admitted their signs can be ignored by the public because the signs are not valid.  This is not as assumption;  they admit this.

The example in my story here.  http://www.wildcamping.co.uk/forums/general-chat/11681-long-mysterious-tale.html This local authority attempted to impose a PCN on me they had no authority to impose and were compelled to withdraw it and change their list of penalties, of offences.  My story is true.

How do you justify these three authorities?

I will like it if you begin your answer with, “These restrictive signs are justified because . . .”

I have another question.  You dismiss a comparison I made as irrelevant.  I thought it out;  I provided a reason;  I provided a link.     I will never appreciate a “That's irrelevant.” answer.   I see that as contemptuous and most people react badly to contempt, as do I.     I will appreciate a “Your example is  irrelevant because . . .” answer.   That is not contemptuous, it is thought out and is part of a debate, not an argument.  May I have your answer, please?   A reasoned answer.


----------



## John H (May 1, 2011)

bigpieeater said:


> Still, I bet you are an avid reader!!


 
I will just say that this is the latest in a long line of assumptions you have made about my lifestyle and/or views and to date you have only got one of them anywhere near correct (and this isn't it).


----------



## John H (May 1, 2011)

maureenandtom said:


> No, Polly, I am on the verge of discovering something vital to me.  At last, maybe, an answer I'd love to have from somebody with knowledge and experience.
> 
> JohnH,  thank you for your reply which I would like you to expand upon.  You know very well that I am furious that those in authority will mislead me about the powers they legally have.  I will make that more clear.  This is my view on this.   I am opposed to authorities putting up restrictive notices which have no validity.  Now my view is clear, yes?
> 
> ...


 
These restrictive signs are justified because any local authority has the right to deter people from doing what it doesn't want them to do. What isn't justified, as I said before, is the local authority attempting to impose fines when there is no legal backing for them to do so. If the signs fail to act as a deterrent, then the local authority will probably admit defeat and either remove them or back them up with properly passed orders. I therefore have no problem with any of the three examples you quote.

Your example is irrelevant to this debate because it refers to somebody commiting an offence; any local authority that puts up deterrent signs is committing no offence at all.

By the way, I personally am not in favour of deterrent signs. I agree with those who say they are not playing fair with the general public. In my previous post I was not passing a comment; I was simply pointing out the legal fact that local councils are breaking no rules by putting "no overnight parking" signs up.


----------



## maureenandtom (May 1, 2011)

Well, I can't argue with that.   Those in authority, whether elected or unelected, can do whatever they want.  It's not illegal to mislead the public.   Ok, John, I accept what you say.

But, do you know, I think it should be illegal to mislead the public.  It certainly doesn't have a "right" feeling about it.

Does this not bother you?  Misleading the public I mean.  Not me accepting what you say.


----------



## John H (May 1, 2011)

maureenandtom said:


> Well, I can't argue with that.   Those in authority, whether elected or unelected, can do whatever they want.  It's not illegal to mislead the public.   Ok, John, I accept what you say.
> 
> But, do you know, I think it should be illegal to mislead the public.  It certainly doesn't have a "right" feeling about it.
> 
> Does this not bother you?  Misleading the public I mean.  Not me accepting what you say.


 
It would be almost impossible to frame a law to make it illegal to mislead because of the difficulty of determining what is and is not misleading - it is more a matter of opinion than of fact. Which brings us back to the need to keep a close eye on what those in authority are doing - something that nobody could object to!


----------



## coolasluck (May 1, 2011)

Keep up the arguing folks i am finding this thread really amusing.
The way i look at it, the council can keep these signs up,because they are stopping all of us wilders in using the spots.That is nearly all, as the more people in vans on campsites means i can park and enjoy the solitude of parking on our own in the no overnighting spots.:banana:
Im a law unto myself me,in fact im thinking of visiting John H and parking outside of his house,when he looks out of his window i am going to moon him my arse:cool1::wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko:


----------



## maureenandtom (May 1, 2011)

No point in arguing.  Sorry about that.

We've had the proper gen from somebody who knows.

The OP asked “No overnight parking.  Is this legally enforceable on the public highway?” and we now have an answer.  It took some doing but we now have the gen.

Maybe, maybe not.  You can't trust what the council says.  It'll say whatever it feels like saying and you can't do a thing about it.  It might be truthful, it might be lying.   There's no way of knowing.

Makes me proud to be British.


----------



## vwalan (May 1, 2011)

right .if you have a spot you like and it as or gets signs ,you visit the local council and ask what order or permission it had for putting them up. then get a good case to go to court with and spank the council. there are all sorts of signs etc already noted .it takes someone to argue their rights . my case i got given all the details and video footage of the illegal signage. i had tyo start it off but then loads of info came my way. 
the real point is they do take money off people illegally ,people do pay the unlawfull requests . best not tell the council what you want it for or they will change the signs before the court case . they did with mine but lots of photos etc paved the way for 1.5 million pounds being given back to innocent motorists . even the highway men years ago never managed to take that much from their robberies .


----------



## John H (May 2, 2011)

coolasluck said:


> Im a law unto myself me,in fact im thinking of visiting John H and parking outside of his house,when he looks out of his window i am going to moon him my arse:cool1::wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko:


 
Feel free - I have no objection to anyone parking outside my house (not that I'm there very often!) but I'm afraid male arses just don't turn me on.


----------



## John H (May 2, 2011)

They have the right because we gave them that right by electing them (provided they act within the framework of responsibilities laid out for them). Further, any decisions made under executive powers can only be made because the full council gave the individual concerned those powers. That is democracy. You, individually, may not like the resulting decisions but unless you can pursuade enough of your fellow citizens to your point of view then there's not a lot you can legally do about it - except complain.

I do, however, agree with your conclusion that a lot of council decisions are made for the sake of a simple life rather than for the benefit of the community - but the fact that are allowed to get away with it is a sign that the majority don't care. If they did care then a different set of councillors would be elected. Don't blame the elected councillors for the failing of the whole community - we get the representatives we deserve.

I also agree with your feelings about privatisation and support you in your belief that there is a whole raft of parking legislation that needs to be revised or abandoned. That is one of the reasons I like to spend so much time in France (that and the wine and the climate!).

By the way, I find your statement about people working for local authorities not living in the real world somewhat strange. Apart from us all being subject to the same laws whoever we work for, have you tried telling any police, fire-fighters, teachers, dustmen, highways workers or park-keepers that they don't live in whatever you regard as the "real" world? If you extend that to "government workers" you could also include nurses, doctors, dentists, the army, prison officers and sewage workers (among most of the rest of the population!).


----------



## vwalan (May 2, 2011)

my view is that putting up signs with out meaning is a waste of public funds . the persons that think it up should be sacked . the cost to the enviroment in producing these signs and the further cost of the manual workers erecting them could all be saved. they litter the country side with crap then sometimes punish innocent individualls for parking or what ever. anyone in private bussiness would be sacked for this blatent miss use of public money. even when its proved they have made a mistake they get away with it. whats needed is a kind of revolution ,a rewrite of many laws and regulations and a cutting down of authority waste. in fact anybody that doesnt agree with me should be shot .hee hee . i would make a good dictator. joking .    but where are we going to start.


----------



## John H (May 2, 2011)

Sorry, but in my opinion we are all part of the same world and there are good/bad, efficient/inefficient, wasters/hardworkers, literate/illiterate, crooks/honest citizens in all sectors (probably in the same proportions). To redress the balance - what about those wonderful bankers from the private sector who got us into the mess we are now in? Or those fantastic people who manage the manufacturing sector and deliberately change the model of whatever it is they are trying to sell us so that you can't get spare parts for last year's model except at vastly inflated prices? Or the international drug companies who try to stop smaller companies selling cheaper medicines? Or the oil companies who refuse to lower the price of diesel even when the global price drops but can't wait to raise it when the global price increases? This is an endless discussion that can only be resolved by saying that there is no significant difference between people.

Hope the rain has stopped!


----------



## vwalan (May 2, 2011)

we are going off topic .but what mess are we in,. the uk is possibly the cheapest place to live in europe at the moment and as been for a while . i cant find a better place to live .and i have looked . i think its in the best position its ever been in my working life . there are jobs and money to be earned . several thousand manage to go away each winter then come back get a job and save enough to go away again next winter. i believe mainland europe is in for a bad time but uk is on the up. mark my words the industry in mainland eu is definately going to get a kick up the arse by the new companies setting up in north africa . chinese companies backed by eu companies that will soon shut the eu part of their bussiness. even the new mini is made in china .google lifan mimi and you will see for your self. i drove one last winter in maroc .far better than eu produced quality. sorry to take it more off topic . free camping is the way to go.


----------



## maureenandtom (May 2, 2011)

We're not going off topic.  This is a natural progression and it's music to my ears.  If we did not progress like this then we would just answer the OP with yes or with no.

I apologise for having given up.   I was on the verge of joining the “Let's not upset the council group.”  Well, not really.  I wouldn't do that.  I was sort of thrilled that at last my contempt for local authority was being publicly justified.  There was a little satisfaction in the thought that I'd been right all along. 

The, if you don't like it, vote for somebody else view is a nonsense.   It's a nonsense because John won't live by his own words;  “They have the right because we gave them that right by electing them *(provided they act within the framework of responsibilities laid out for them)* “

John, you don't act within the framework of responsibilities laid out for you.   You are the problem.  Yes, you and the people like you.   Your view is that if it is not illegal, it is legal.  That is wrong.   You believe you can mislead.  No one other than your people can do that.   If it says beans *on *the tin it has to be beans *in *the tin.   And the right sort of beans at that.   Your notices can have legal force or they can be toothless and you say that's fine but you don't want anybody to know which.  John, it isn't right.  If you want to publish your wish list then say so on the notice.  Say, “This is an advisory notice, please comply.”


----------



## maureenandtom (May 2, 2011)

John H said:


> Sorry, but in my opinion we are all part of the same world and there are good/bad, efficient/inefficient, wasters/hardworkers, literate/illiterate, crooks/honest citizens in all sectors (probably in the same proportions). To redress the balance - what about those wonderful bankers from the private sector who got us into the mess we are now in? Or those fantastic people who manage the manufacturing sector and deliberately change the model of whatever it is they are trying to sell us so that you can't get spare parts for last year's model except at vastly inflated prices? Or the international drug companies who try to stop smaller companies selling cheaper medicines? Or the oil companies who refuse to lower the price of diesel even when the global price drops but can't wait to raise it when the global price increases? This is an endless discussion that can only be resolved by saying that there is no significant difference between people.
> 
> Hope the rain has stopped!


 
Or the councils who lost millions in Iceland.


----------



## John H (May 3, 2011)

I don't think anybody could disagree with the sentiment of getting rid of unecessary bureaucracy, incompetent teachers and selfish bankers. My issue with you is that you seem to think that these people live in different worlds; I don't.


----------



## John H (May 3, 2011)

maureenandtom said:


> The, if you don't like it, vote for somebody else view is a nonsense.   It's a nonsense because John won't live by his own words;  “They have the right because we gave them that right by electing them *(provided they act within the framework of responsibilities laid out for them)* “
> 
> John, you don't act within the framework of responsibilities laid out for you.   You are the problem.  Yes, you and the people like you.   Your view is that if it is not illegal, it is legal.  That is wrong.   You believe you can mislead.  No one other than your people can do that.   If it says beans *on *the tin it has to be beans *in *the tin.   And the right sort of beans at that.   Your notices can have legal force or they can be toothless and you say that's fine but you don't want anybody to know which.  John, it isn't right.  If you want to publish your wish list then say so on the notice.  Say, “This is an advisory notice, please comply.”


 
I really cannot follow what you are saying here. What is your alternative to the phrase "If you don't like it, vote for somebody else"? As for the framework laid down for councillors, this is well-defined by statute - not by me. And when I say "we elected them" I don't mean that I voted for them, I mean that they won a majority of the votes cast. To object to that is to object to the colour of grass - interesting but pointless.

As for me not acting within the framework of responsibilities laid out for me, I would like you to be specific. What framework, who laid it down and how do I not act within it? You are confusing me with the organisations you abhor. If you mean that I didn't when I was a councillor, then I would again love to know on what knowledge you base that conclusion, since you don't know who I am or what I did. 

You say I believe it is ok to mislead. I said nothing of the kind. What I said was that there is no offence committed by councils who simply put up NOP notices as a deterrent. I also said that I did not greatly approve of those who did but that it would be almost impossible to frame a law that banned anyone for misleading others because one man's "misleading" is another man's principle. For example, I believe that the current "NO to AV" campaign is not only misleading but lying when they say that some people will have more votes than others; other people no doubt believe that it is the truth. 

You also claim that I don't want anybody to know which signs have legal force and which don't. If you read all the comments I have written on this subject you will find that I have several times told people  how to find out which are which.

You have the same rights to your opinions as anyone else - but don't try to tell me what my opinions are - especially if you are going to get it so wrong.


----------



## maureenandtom (May 3, 2011)

Oh John, I'm so sorry.  Truly.   I can't be bothered to read all that.  Maybe later.  I've skimmed through it, I'll read it later.  Maybe.

But it doesn't matter.  You and I are so far apart we will never agree.  I will accept that now.

I see you and your attitude as being the main reason for the lack of respect for local government.   I've tried and tried to talk reasonably to you but it's no good.  You see no other point of view -just your own.  You just know so much better than me you will never be the shaken in the view that you have a God given or, you would probably say, an electorate given right to trample on the rest of us.

This is what councils think of their own parking policy.   I've started to build up a library of such pictures.  Tiny little cameras nowadays are wonderful.  I show you it and, somehow, I know you will justify it. 







John, do you never, ever, think that somebody else might be right?   Just for a change?   

I see you as a Jobsworth.   Spent your life knowing what para this of section that of document such and such means.  You're not alone, plenty of people are like this.  Spent your life finding ways of not doing things.  John, just for a change, can't you try to see things from other perspectives?   You look for the loophole that prevents, I look for the loophole that permits.  We both profess to be wild campers;  in favour of individual freedoms but, truly, I think only one of us is.

All this is rhetorical.  I don't expect an answer.  Actually, John, I don't want one.  You don't know how much regret I have in rejecting you.


----------



## Delboy (May 3, 2011)

Not on subject, but I recently got a parking ticket using my badge on double yellow lines, because it had EXPIRED! You've got to apply for a new one now when the date is up, which I may or may not have forgot, if I was informed. Anyhow the warden said appeal it, but it was no good, I still had to pay! Now here comes the crunch, I don't think they were legal lines, when I went back and checked And some lines aren't, if you examine them closely! But seen as my badge was expired, it was a fair cop!


----------



## John H (May 3, 2011)

maureenandtom said:


> Oh John, I'm so sorry.  Truly.   I can't be bothered to read all that.  Maybe later.  I've skimmed through it, I'll read it later.  Maybe.
> 
> But it doesn't matter.  You and I are so far apart we will never agree.  I will accept that now.
> 
> I see you and your attitude as being the main reason for the lack of respect for local government.   I've tried and tried to talk reasonably to you but it's no good.  You see no other point of view -just your own.  You just know so much better than me you will never be the shaken in the view that you have a God given or, you would probably say, an electorate given right to trample on the rest of us.


 
So you think it ok to criticise somebody without bothering to read what they say and then you have the nerve to say that I am the one who never listens to other people!!!

Lets get this straight. We were talking about one specific thing - the FACT (not my opinion) that it is not illegal for councils to erect NOP signs as a deterrent. That's it. Nothing else. I even said that although it is legal I am not convinced of its morality. Yet from that you choose to conclude that I believe elected representatives have a "God given .... right to trample on the rest of us". If you think that is a sensible response to what I have said then all I can say is the one thing I agree with you on is that only one of us is being reasonable. Just because you don't like a fact doesn't make it somebody elses' opinion; it remains a fact. 


If you had bothered to read what I wrote you will have seen that I concluded that everybody has the right to their own opinion but not to deliberately misinterpret other peoples views. Criticise my views by all means but if you continue to put incorrect words into my mouth then I will continue to come back at you.

And as for the picture of a council van breaking the law, as I have already said (but you have clearly not read) then if anyone (council, individual or organisation) breaks the law then they deserve to be punished accordingly. If, for example, a council attempts to follow up a deterrent notice with an illegal fine then they deserve what you and others give them. Since I have made this clear on many ocassions I can only conclude that you have never properly read anything I have said. That is your privilege but if you don't read, don't criticise. It makes you look silly.


----------



## maureenandtom (May 3, 2011)

Delboy said:


> Not on subject, but I recently got a parking ticket using my badge on double yellow lines, because it had EXPIRED! You've got to apply for a new one now when the date is up, which I may or may not have forgot, if I was informed. Anyhow the warden said appeal it, but it was no good, I still had to pay! Now here comes the crunch, I don't think they were legal lines, when I went back and checked And some lines aren't, if you examine them closely! But seen as my badge was expired, it was a fair cop!



Near to the subject though.  It's a pity your appeal didn't work.  I haven't taken my own advice but if you begin to take notice, councils frequently flout their own rules.  If I have my phone with me (unusual) or my camera (even more unusual) then I have taken to snapping them.  I would not hesitate to use these snaps if I felt a need - even to publishing them in the local newspaper. 

If I felt a need.

Here's another - different council, diferent time, same place almost.   These people are so dishonest that as far as I'm concerned any tactic is fair.


----------



## vwalan (May 3, 2011)

thats the way to do it. also take pics of illegal (or dettering signs) get ready to use them when neccasary .the revolution is slowly starting. course the driver could be disabled . best check if they have a blue badge next time. the trouble is most people are afraid of councils and police etc. just pay up and then mouth off in the pub. i say let them know they work for us .


----------



## maingate (May 3, 2011)

A bit off topic.....but here goes.

I am informed that JohnH is a regular on another similar website and regularly makes disparaging remarks about this particular site. My informant believes that he only comes on here to wind people up.

Make your own mind up (or rise to his baiting). :have fun:


----------



## maureenandtom (May 3, 2011)

If Delboy had talked to me first.  Maybe a letter like this would have done the trick.

_Dear Sir,

I'm so sorry to have missed the renewal date on my disabled badge.  You already know that I was aware my badge had expired and that I had telephoned you for renewal.  You told me to apply in the usual way and that I could continue to use my badge in the meantime

I have no proof of this, of course.  However, you have.   When I telephoned I was warned that my telephone conversation would be recorded.   This has turned out to be a blessing.  If you will turn to that recording you will see that I have been using my badge as authorised by you.   If you should decide to take me to court then I will demand that you produce that recording for the court to hear.

Please cancel the enclosed PCN and also tell me when I will receive my replacement badge.  I'm still waiting for it.

Yours …....

Delboy_

Then if you have to, you say,  “What do you mean, you can't find the recording?” 

Maingate,

Thank you for that.   JohnH accused me of making myself look silly and he's right.  It's not a nice feeling but I had the feeling that he was doing this deliberately.   The trouble is that now and again he has something sensible to say and I freely admit he has good points which I sometimes envy.  His attention to detail, for example, is exemplary.   He has exactly the talents I would look for when employing an office junior.   Someone who will do his job with meticulous attention to the rules given to him.  An accounts clerk in charge of motor mileage records maybe.   Totally unsuitable for any job requiring him to think of thinking for himself at all, of course.   The snag is that if we can get him to polish up the handle on the big front door as well he might well end up ruler of the Queen's Navy.   God,  What a thought.  During my service I spent 12 months serving alongside the RN . . .

Imagine JohnH . . .   

No, I refuse.


----------



## John H (May 3, 2011)

maingate said:


> A bit off topic.....but here goes.
> 
> I am informed that JohnH is a regular on another similar website and regularly makes disparaging remarks about this particular site. My informant believes that he only comes on here to wind people up.
> 
> Make your own mind up (or rise to his baiting). :have fun:


 
Your informant (does his name begin with "c" by any chance?) is correct in that I make disparaging remarks about this site on the "other" site - because I believe in free speech however uncomfortable that may be. The "other" site also believes in free speech and never deletes anything or bans anyone, which is why I regard that as my spiritual home as a wildcamper. The reason for my disparaging remarks is that too often this site deletes or bans. 

A cursory look through my posts will show that I come on here either to offer advice about wildcamping or to correct misrepresentations about things not to do with wildcamping that I have knowledge about. There are plenty of things that I have no knowledge about and I do not comment on those.  Some people don't like their prejudices being pointed out - that is their problem, not mine.


----------



## John H (May 3, 2011)

maureenandtom said:


> JohnH accused me of making myself look silly and he's right.


 
Its a pity that you didn't read my comments before dismissing them because I think your advice to delboy is very good - if he had asked me for advice I would probably have given him something similar. You could be a useful second-in-command if you sat down and thought before posting. But a piece of advice for you (although I know your prejudices will probably not allow you to take it) is that you need to look at the worst possible scenario in any situation before you can successfully combat it. Burying your head in the sand doesn't tend to produce results. If you think I said all that to wind you up you are probably right but it is true nonetheless.


----------



## maingate (May 3, 2011)

John H said:


> Your informant (does his name begin with "c" by any chance?) is correct in that I make disparaging remarks about this site on the "other" site - because I believe in free speech however uncomfortable that may be. The "other" site also believes in free speech and never deletes anything or bans anyone, which is why I regard that as my spiritual home as a wildcamper. The reason for my disparaging remarks is that too often this site deletes or bans.
> 
> A cursory look through my posts will show that I come on here either to offer advice about wildcamping or to correct misrepresentations about things not to do with wildcamping that I have knowledge about. There are plenty of things that I have no knowledge about and I do not comment on those. Some people don't like their prejudices being pointed out - that is their problem, not mine.


 
I have more than one friend John and 'No' it is not 'c'. 

As long as you refer to this site as 'the dark side' and laugh about the trouble you have caused over here then I will regard you as a two faced hypocrite. This makes all of your posts suspect.

I am no fan of bigpieeater but I think he sussed you out better than I did.


----------



## John H (May 3, 2011)

maingate said:


> I have more than one friend John and 'No' it is not 'c'.
> 
> As long as you refer to this site as 'the dark side' and laugh about the trouble you have caused over here then I will regard you as a two faced hypocrite. This makes all of your posts suspect.
> 
> I am no fan of bigpieeater but I think he sussed you out better than I did.


 
Glad to hear you have a lot of friends. I have nothing to hide - if I did then I wouldn't make comments about this site on another site that is used by many members from here. Yes, I refer to this site as "the dark side" for the reasons I have stated. Do you not believe in free speech and dispise the deletion of comments that may be uncomfortable but are nonetheless within the law? By the way, before you say it, I have not had comments deleted and I have never been banned: I am arguing for the right of people I disagree with to be heard. Having said that, I am pleased that, since the demise of Cassandra, things have got better here - they are still not perfect but they are definitely moving in the right direction.

As for the laughter - yes, I do take a sadistic pleasure in annoying people who I consider to be contemptable (fortunately there are few of them - and you are not among them). It may be a fault (and I own up to several faults) but can you honestly say you have never done the same?


----------



## coolasluck (May 3, 2011)

maingate said:


> I have more than one friend John and 'No' it is not 'c'.
> 
> As long as you refer to this site as 'the dark side' and laugh about the trouble you have caused over here then I will regard you as a two faced hypocrite. This makes all of your posts suspect.
> 
> I am no fan of bigpieeater but I think he sussed you out better than I did.


 







Thanks Maingate for letting him now i was not the culprit,as i am quite sure that dear John was thinking it.
Incidentally John H i am outside your house right now and i am showing you my hairy arse as we speak,go on man just one look i dare you just dont open the window as i am liable to fart in your face.:raofl::raofl:


----------



## bigpieeater (May 3, 2011)

coolasluck said:


> Thanks Maingate for letting him now i was not the culprit,as i am quite sure that dear John was thinking it.
> Incidentally John H i am outside your house right now and i am showing you my hairy arse as we speak,go on man just one look i dare you just dont open the window as i am liable to fart in your face.:raofl::raofl:


 
DON'T FART YET, I'M ON MY WAY TO JOIN YOU:lol-049:


----------



## bigpieeater (May 3, 2011)

maingate said:


> I have more than one friend John and 'No' it is not 'c'.
> 
> As long as you refer to this site as 'the dark side' and laugh about the trouble you have caused over here then I will regard you as a two faced hypocrite. This makes all of your posts suspect.
> 
> I am no fan of bigpieeater but I think he sussed you out better than I did.


 
Hi Maingate
I am sooooooooo glad that you have sussed this loony leftie ex-teacher out.
Don't suppose you would be interested in becoming Chairman of the bigpieeater fan club?:lol-049:


----------



## John H (May 4, 2011)

coolasluck said:


> Thanks Maingate for letting him now i was not the culprit,as i am quite sure that dear John was thinking it.
> Incidentally John H i am outside your house right now and i am showing you my hairy arse as we speak,go on man just one look i dare you just dont open the window as i am liable to fart in your face.:raofl::raofl:



I certainly was! By the way, save your wind - I'm not there but I'm sure the neighbours are having a good laugh.


----------



## John H (May 4, 2011)

Nice to know that you know what you are talking about but its a shame you are so wrong about my life history. I have spent time in both of the worlds you seem to think the planet is divided into - as well as being Leader of the local Council and a member of several other organisations from Chair of an Arts Centre to Director of a Football Club. Contrary to your opinion that only those with time on their hands get themselves put on such bodies, I am a proponent of the saying that if you want something done ask a busy man. I will match my life experience against anybody who claims that you can only express an opinion if you have a particular background. I, unlike you, believe that everyone has a right to an opinion. What I dislike is unreasoned prejudice, sloppy thinking and actions by some that are liable to make it more difficult to follow the lifestyle that makes us members of this site - and I will continue to counter these things wherever I find them. Have a nice day.


----------



## maureenandtom (May 4, 2011)

YouTube - HMS Pinafore: When I was a lad & Ruler of the Queen's Navee


----------



## Bigpeetee (May 4, 2011)

Phil,

Maybe we need a new web site for Grumpy Old Motorhomers??


----------



## coolasluck (May 4, 2011)

maureenandtom said:


> YouTube - HMS Pinafore: When I was a lad & Ruler of the Queen's Navee


 


Hi Maureen and Tom,
Why is it that when listening all that came into my head was the 2 Ronnies in one of their singing sketches!!


----------



## NoThatsNotMe (May 4, 2011)

donkey too said:


> You can park for three hours using a valid blue badge, but you should not stay in the vehicle. The badge is to allow the badge holder to get to within thirty metres of their destination. However you should be careful that you are not causing an obstruction. Now here is or can be the down side of that. only the policeman on duty can say whether or not you are causing an obstruction.
> The Blue badge rules are very complicated. for instance a driver with a badge cannot sit in the car using the badge while his/her partner/passenger get out to shop etc., An able driver carrying a badge holding passenger canot use the badge to park. they should drop the passenger off and then park in a normal way.
> Of coarse we all know this don't happen as the police people never check. they see a badge and walk on by. That is why Blue badges on the black market in Cambridge fetch upwards of 600 quid. A bargain as it gets free parking in the city which would normally cost over 25 pound a day. it also get you free tolls. London emissions charge etc.,
> Interestingly. It is against the law to clamp a car displaying a valid blue badge.
> Saying all that I use my badge in car parks as it gives me free all day parking in most and then I can stay the night as well. More importantly it gives me a wider space.


 
Things are even better in Scotland as last time I read the book that came with my badge, up there, you can park without time restriction on yellow lines though you do need to watch for 'no motorhome' or 'no vehicles over 7ft in height' signs (North Berwick sea front is particularly bad for this).


----------



## bigpieeater (May 4, 2011)

John H said:


> Nice to know that you know what you are talking about but its a shame you are so wrong about my life history. I have spent time in both of the worlds you seem to think the planet is divided into - as well as being Leader of the local Council and a member of several other organisations from Chair of an Arts Centre to Director of a Football Club. Contrary to your opinion that only those with time on their hands get themselves put on such bodies, I am a proponent of the saying that if you want something done ask a busy man. I will match my life experience against anybody who claims that you can only express an opinion if you have a particular background. I, unlike you, believe that everyone has a right to an opinion. What I dislike is unreasoned prejudice, sloppy thinking and actions by some that are liable to make it more difficult to follow the lifestyle that makes us members of this site - and I will continue to counter these things wherever I find them. Have a nice day.


Funny isn't it...when I express an opinion, I am all that's wrong, but it is ok for you to have yours...TYPICAL TEACHER!!! oh yes, and COUNCILLOR!!!
You keep banging on about being a director of a football club....who was it, the school under 12's :lol-053::lol-049:
Looks like you fan base on here is dwindling doesn't it?


----------



## John H (May 4, 2011)

bigpieeater said:


> Funny isn't it...when I express an opinion, I am all that's wrong, but it is ok for you to have yours...TYPICAL TEACHER!!! oh yes, and COUNCILLOR!!!
> You keep banging on about being a director of a football club....who was it, the school under 12's :lol-053::lol-049:
> Looks like you fan base on here is dwindling doesn't it?


 
Still making yourself look foolish, I see. I have repeatedly said that I believe in everybody being allowed to express their opinion - even idiots. 

My list of things I have been involved in was in response to somebody attempting to predict my background and getting it totally wrong (now who else has done that consistently??). It is of course completely irrelevant that I was a football club director -but I mentioned it simply because it was not what the poster was expecting. I enjoy winding up fools and I seem to have attracted a few (every community of several thousand will have a handful). 

As for the fan base, I'm am not seeking fans but you might like to know that you have misjudged your target. There are a large number of teachers and other public servants who contribute to this site and many have told me that they are content to stay in the background because they don't enjoy confrontation. I have no such qualms (as a proud grumpy old man) and regard it as my duty to allow people like you to hang yourself with the rope I have given you. If I annoy a few on the way then in most cases it is probably because they need to be annoyed.


----------



## coolasluck (May 4, 2011)

I know what the club was John,it was Notts County wasnt it:cool1:


----------



## bigpieeater (May 4, 2011)

coolasluck said:


> I know what the club was John,it was Notts County wasnt it:cool1:


 
Is that the same one I am thinking of??? Notts County Nil:raofl:


----------



## Freestyle (May 5, 2011)

*Parking in Whitby*

I parked legally in Whitby in  a cliff top car park but got a ticket! I rang the office in Scarborough and they cancelled it and admitted that a councillor lived overlooking this car park and objected to motor homes using it!!!! I commented on the fact that there were motor homes parked on the road outside the car park which had not received tickets and was told that that was the responsibility of the Highways Dept and the council had no jurisdiction over them!!!!! So I parked on the road with no problems. (Needless to say, I did park thoughtfully without blocking the views from houses etc.).


----------



## John H (May 5, 2011)

Freestyle said:


> I parked legally in Whitby in  a cliff top car park but got a ticket! I rang the office in Scarborough and they cancelled it and admitted that a councillor lived overlooking this car park and objected to motor homes using it!!!! I commented on the fact that there were motor homes parked on the road outside the car park which had not received tickets and was told that that was the responsibility of the Highways Dept and the council had no jurisdiction over them!!!!! So I parked on the road with no problems. (Needless to say, I did park thoughtfully without blocking the views from houses etc.).


 
There are always those who give any group of people a bad name - I would have looked up the name of the councillor, gone to the local press and reported him to the council standards committee. As I have said many times, individuals (whether they are councillors or not) have no powers unless they are specifically given them by the proper authority. It never ceases to amaze me how many people who should know better don't know or don't want to know the rules.


----------



## yorkslass (May 8, 2011)

Freestyle said:


> I parked legally in Whitby in  a cliff top car park but got a ticket! I rang the office in Scarborough and they cancelled it and admitted that a councillor lived overlooking this car park and objected to motor homes using it!!!! I commented on the fact that there were motor homes parked on the road outside the car park which had not received tickets and was told that that was the responsibility of the Highways Dept and the council had no jurisdiction over them!!!!! So I parked on the road with no problems. (Needless to say, I did park thoughtfully without blocking the views from houses etc.).


 
hope i am not going off topic but which car park? if its the one i am thinking of we have used it regularly for both parking and staying overnight.


----------



## yorkslass (May 8, 2011)

i wonder if someone could tell me if councils have to have planning permission to erect road signage? The reason i want to know is ,if i put up a no parking sign outside my home,i would be told to take it down because i didnt have planning permission.I am raising this point because our local council put up no parking signs,. then the day after they took them down again because someone pointed out they needed approval from planning, so are all these signs we see not only unenforceable but also illegally displayed in the first place?


----------



## John H (May 9, 2011)

yorkslass said:


> i wonder if someone could tell me if councils have to have planning permission to erect road signage? The reason i want to know is ,if i put up a no parking sign outside my home,i would be told to take it down because i didnt have planning permission.I am raising this point because our local council put up no parking signs,. then the day after they took them down again because someone pointed out they needed approval from planning, so are all these signs we see not only unenforceable but also illegally displayed in the first place?


 
The relevant legislation here is the Road Traffis Regulations Act 1984, section 5. The Highways Authority (usually the County Council) has the authority to erect road signs without seeking planning permission provided that they comply with regulations laid down as to size, colour and type - and providing they do not conflict with any traffic order laid down (eg, they can't put up a sign saying speed limit 30 mph if the traffic orders state it should be 40 mph). If any council which is not the Highways Authority (eg District or Parish) wants to erect a road sign, then they have to get permission from the H.A. If your council had to take the signs down it is possible that they conflicted with traffic orders or that they were, say, District Council signs but they hadn't got permission from the County Council.


----------



## Bernard Jones (Jun 11, 2011)

vwalan said:


> the uk is possibly the cheapest place to live in europe at the moment and as been for a while .


Because the pound has crashed in value - even against the Euro.  Inflation will surely follow.


----------



## Bernard Jones (Jun 12, 2011)

[No message]


----------



## vwalan (Jun 12, 2011)

yes prices are going up in uk. but as a person that does visit other eu contries i notice that because the pound fell other countries are getting expensive .on return to uk a few years ago and recent returns i find uk cheaper for mant items . in fact i now hardly buy food items abroad . take lots from uk. there was a time i would buy tools electrical goods etc on my travels but now uk can compete even beat the prices i see when away. this year my fridge wouldnt work on the day we were leaving ,thought never mind buy one in spain. never did managed with out as they were nearly 30quid dearer than here. i tried many places but to no success. i also used to buy lpg cookers over there for use in truck campers. too expensive now. again water heaters used to buy in morocco .now they are much too dear  .solar panels were cheaper abroad not anymore .clothes we have good prices on them now . its strange that many things have become cheaper here . may change but at the moment uk is great. too cold in winter though so must go away again . ha ha .cheers alan


----------



## VeeDub (Jun 12, 2011)

Good grief!!!!  From itinerant layby occupants, through the rise and fall of the British Empire, Pistols at Dawn (or was it more 'Handbags at Sunset')... to the cost of tea bags in Tijuana!  All that was missing were the Football Results. I might just consider cancelling the Sunday Rag in favour of reading more threads like this. I need a lie down after all that!!!

Breathless of Barrovia.

:beer:


----------



## John H (Jun 12, 2011)

Good afternoon, Veedub. Fulham 2 Arsenal 2 - anything else you'd like to know?


----------



## Pollik (Jun 12, 2011)

So...we have talked the talk.  Who is going to walk the walk?

It seems to me that what is needed is for all the different MH groups (yes, even the place whose name we must not mention) to get together and mount a coordinated approach to local authorities and national organisations, such as the National Trust, to put the case to adopt a French solution.  MHs are not the dregs of humanity.  We are tourists with money to spend.  In a small, unremarkable village in France, in February, it is not unusual to see 5 MH's.  That is 10 people who need to be fed and who will spend in local shops.

There are lots of solutions that local authorities could implement (look at the variety of pricing and facility models that are used in France), according to their greed (although if they are too greedy, they are likely to see their model fail).  At the bottom of the list is to simply open up unused car parks for overnight use.

Over the last few days, I have been to a few sites in the POI database which now have signs prohibiting overnight parking.  It seems to be a growing trend and it is in entirely the wrong direction.  Britain is fast becoming a "can't do" country.:mad1:


----------



## John H (Jun 12, 2011)

vwalan said:


> yes prices are going up in uk. but as a person that does visit other eu contries i notice that because the pound fell other countries are getting expensive .on return to uk a few years ago and recent returns i find uk cheaper for mant items . in fact i now hardly buy food items abroad . take lots from uk. there was a time i would buy tools electrical goods etc on my travels but now uk can compete even beat the prices i see when away. this year my fridge wouldnt work on the day we were leaving ,thought never mind buy one in spain. never did managed with out as they were nearly 30quid dearer than here. i tried many places but to no success. i also used to buy lpg cookers over there for use in truck campers. too expensive now. again water heaters used to buy in morocco .now they are much too dear  .solar panels were cheaper abroad not anymore .clothes we have good prices on them now . its strange that many things have become cheaper here . may change but at the moment uk is great. too cold in winter though so must go away again . ha ha .cheers alan


 
I know what you mean, Alan, but since my two biggest items of expenditure are diesel and wine, I still find the UK much more expensive than almost anywhere in Europe (or the rest of the world, for that matter!).


----------



## vwalan (Jun 12, 2011)

well you have to go to spain and come back with a years /6 month supply. have big diesel tanks as well cant quite manage 6 months on that .but havent bought any dirsel yet since i got home . 400 ltr tanks . miss the vwlt it had 450litre tanks . cant have it all. 
stocking up already lots of bargains to be hadin uk. but am still eating alot of stuff i got in spain . always keep your eyes open. lidl dropped their mortadela siciliana just before we left down to about 35pencefor 400gram. bargain . keeps for ages. dated 18/9/11. good on salads and nice fried.never mind their brandy lovelly .


----------



## John H (Jun 12, 2011)

Can only manage two months supply of both in my van! But I still have three bottles of that delicious brandy left! Not long till I'm off again, though.


----------



## vwalan (Jun 12, 2011)

i got some as they reduced it for fathers day in spain or something in march .or april only bought 60 bottles. will mature with age so drink it in coffee put a bit in the cheap lager . mmmmmmm. cleaned out lidl in roquetas and one in almeria. should have seen the looks. they dropped 8 year old scotch the day we left but someone beat me to it. gready monkeys. ha ha .pop in have a drink . cheers alan.


----------



## AndyC (Jun 12, 2011)

Pollik said:


> So...we have talked the talk.  Who is going to walk the walk?


I totally agree. What's needed is a single issue pressure group to put a coordinated approach together. Trouble is, it would need a dedicated, professional, hard working leadership...

AndyC


----------



## Bernard Jones (Jun 12, 2011)

Sorry I digress, back to topic.  Local politics, (Which Cameron seems keen to expand as he can delegate unpopular decisions to them) means that when we go on holiday, we don't pay our council tax in that town, we don't have a vote in that town, so we will not be listened to.
I have a plain van and find a nice quiet ('high class') residential area to park up.  Never had a problem.
Occasionally I get a visit from the police because the local Victor Meldrew neighbourhood watch character has seen a van he doesn't recognise and thinks its somebody out doing a burglary.  I simply tell the police that I am keen to obey the law and as overnight sleeping is prohbited on the car parks, and my van will not fit within a marked bay, the only place I can legally park is on the street.  The police have always been OK about it.  Sometimes they say well nobody is checking the car parks at night, nudge nudge, and I might move down there if I like the look of it.  But car parks tend to be noisier, more open and windswept (wind rocking the van) so I prefer the street.
If local residents (ie voters and council tax payers)  start complaining about people leeping in vans on the street the council is far more likely to listen to them and remove the sleeping restrictions on the car parks. If thats what you want.


----------



## John H (Jun 13, 2011)

Bernard Jones said:


> Sorry I digress, back to topic.  Local politics, (Which Cameron seems keen to expand as he can delegate unpopular decisions to them) means that when we go on holiday, we don't pay our council tax in that town, we don't have a vote in that town, so we will not be listened to.
> I have a plain van and find a nice quiet ('high class') residential area to park up.  Never had a problem.
> Occasionally I get a visit from the police because the local Victor Meldrew neighbourhood watch character has seen a van he doesn't recognise and thinks its somebody out doing a burglary.  I simply tell the police that I am keen to obey the law and as overnight sleeping is prohbited on the car parks, and my van will not fit within a marked bay, the only place I can legally park is on the street.  The police have always been OK about it.  Sometimes they say well nobody is checking the car parks at night, nudge nudge, and I might move down there if I like the look of it.  But car parks tend to be noisier, more open and windswept (wind rocking the van) so I prefer the street.
> If local residents (ie voters and council tax payers)  start complaining about people leeping in vans on the street the council is far more likely to listen to them and remove the sleeping restrictions on the car parks. If thats what you want.


 
Hi Bernard. I would take issue with your first paragraph on the basis that tourists provide the majority of income in tourist resorts, so our collective power is possibly greater than if we lived there and paid council tax (France recognises this). On the other hand, motorhomers form only a small part of that tourist trade, so we can only achieve anything if we can persuade the rest to support us (and they probably won't, which is why campaigns are not likely to succeed). I'm not opposed to campaigns (far from it) but minorities like us have it all stacked against us - which brings me to your last point: if local residents complain about us overnighting in the streets then the result is more likely to be bans on street parking AND overnighting in car parks, not shifting us to the car parks! In many ways it might be best for us to keep quiet and keep out of the way. If you don't upset people they are less likely to want to get rid of you.


----------



## Bernard Jones (Jun 13, 2011)

John H said:


> Hi Bernard. I would take issue with your first paragraph on the basis that tourists provide the majority of income in tourist resorts, so our collective power is possibly greater than if we lived there and paid council tax (France recognises this). On the other hand, motorhomers form only a small part of that tourist trade, so we can only achieve anything if we can persuade the rest to support us (and they probably won't, which is why campaigns are not likely to succeed). I'm not opposed to campaigns (far from it) but minorities like us have it all stacked against us - which brings me to your last point: if local residents complain about us overnighting in the streets then the result is more likely to be bans on street parking AND overnighting in car parks, not shifting us to the car parks! In many ways it might be best for us to keep quiet and keep out of the way. If you don't upset people they are less likely to want to get rid of you.


 
Hi John,
1) They must realise that Wildcamping motorhomers are not likely to spend enough money to influence local politics which is invariably dominated by landlords, hoteliers, restauranteurs etc.
(not that everyone's against us.  Many locals would like to see more camping so that the holiday acommodation is rented out to local people as there is often a desperate shortage of affordable housing)
2)  How can they legislate against parking an 'ordinary' van in all the streets, bearing in mind how many local residents have or need them :sleep-027:

PS:  I certainly agree about keeping quiet and out of the way and always do.  As far as I know the only time my van has attracted any atttention is when someone (quite wrongly) has thought it might be being used in some sort of crime.  As soon as they realise it is not, they seem quite happy.

I think it depends what you want to do.  If you want to put anything outside, chairs, awnings, sat dishes, or whatever, you should really go on a campsite. But when I park up overnight I am happy to stay inside my van, which then looks the same as thousands of other ordinary (commercial) vans which park on the streets every night.


----------



## John H (Jun 13, 2011)

Bernard Jones said:


> How can they legislate against parking an 'ordinary' van in all the streets, bearing in mind how many local residents have or need them :sleep-027:


 
They can't - I was trying to make the point that local residents complaining about motorhomes parking in the street is highly unlikely to cause local councils to remove any restrictions that might apply in their car parks. Even the impossible is more likely than this!  Happy travels.


----------



## Pollik (Jun 13, 2011)

AndyC said:


> I totally agree. What's needed is a single issue pressure group to put a coordinated approach together. Trouble is, it would need a dedicated, professional, hard working leadership...
> 
> AndyC



True, although I think a volume of rationally argued letters/emails (not proformas) would do no harm.

I think that the first step would be for the notional leaders of the various interest groups to have about it first, to see if their interest group or organisation would add their name to a campaign.  The "who would run the campaign" could be addressed later, as could the debates about whether councils would listen to small minority of tourists.  With the right approach and determination, minorities can get things changed.


Polly


----------



## lebesset (Jun 13, 2011)

hate to say this , but last time I looked it was only possible to park without lights on the public highway during hours of darkness if your vehicle had an unladen weight of less than 1525 Kg [ and then with provisos ]


----------



## John H (Jun 13, 2011)

lebesset said:


> hate to say this , but last time I looked it was only possible to park without lights on the public highway during hours of darkness if your vehicle had an unladen weight of less than 1525 Kg [ and then with provisos ]


 
True - but how often do you see such vehicles with parking lights switched on? All of which supports my contention that if you keep your head down and don't annoy anyone you will be alright but if you annoy local residents, councils or the police then they have a ready-made excuse to get you.


----------



## lebesset (Jun 13, 2011)

so the answer is probably ...yes , unless you leave your parking lights on


----------



## John H (Jun 14, 2011)

12 pages and we got there in the end!


----------



## vwalan (Jun 14, 2011)

actually no one as a right to park on the highway at all. its obstructing the free passage of the high way. all of the highway is to be kept free unless in designated parking places. so off we go again.


----------



## lebesset (Jun 14, 2011)

how can that be alan , there are precise regulations about legally parking on the road , size of vehicle , distance from corners etc


----------



## vwalan (Jun 14, 2011)

it seems to me that there are parking areas that can be parked in that are designated parking areas . in practice you may park on many roads ie outside your house,etc but the police have the power to enforce the public right of way to pass and repass over every part of the public road and can prosecute anyone for obstructing the highway. there are rules about where you cant park like corners and you must face the direction of the traffic after dark.lights not needed on streetlight roads with less than 30mph speed limits .remember our laws usually tell us what we cant do. other countries laws tell you what you must do. thats why we have to set a precidance in courts. 
police can have your vehicle removed for obstruction .fine can be up to 1,000quid.


----------



## John H (Jun 14, 2011)

As I said, no point in upsetting them 'cos they'll find a way to get you in the end. Legally, the only place you can stop and not be subject to some kind of potential comeback is your own drive - and even there if you sit in the vehicle while over the limit you can get done!


----------



## Pollik (Jun 14, 2011)

And if it is untaxed and unSORNed.


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Jun 14, 2011)

Pollik said:


> And if it is untaxed and unSORNed.


 
It can now pe picked up and crushed.  All vehicles must now be insured even those in garages unless sorned.


----------



## kimbowbill (Jun 14, 2011)

i've not read all this thread and i'll probably get pulled by one certain member (yes you know who you are lol) but, i was in flamborough a couple of years ago, got kicked off north landing by a jobsworth it was late at night and dint know where to go, so i parked on the road outside a hotel, two coppers walked, yes, walked passed, so i asked them if i was ok to park here, he looked at my tax disc and asked if i was insured, he said i could park there as long as i want and as long as my van was legal and i was not obstructing anyone, 

Jen


----------



## John H (Jun 15, 2011)

kimbowbill said:


> i've not read all this thread and i'll probably get pulled by one certain member (yes you know who you are lol) but, i was in flamborough a couple of years ago, got kicked off north landing by a jobsworth it was late at night and dint know where to go, so i parked on the road outside a hotel, two coppers walked, yes, walked passed, so i asked them if i was ok to park here, he looked at my tax disc and asked if i was insured, he said i could park there as long as i want and as long as my van was legal and i was not obstructing anyone,
> 
> Jen



Once again it is shown that if you are polite then you get a positive response. If you claim an absolute right to park where you want then you are more likely to be moved on because they get pissed off with you. Common sense really - but some members of this site don't seem to have any. Happy travels.


----------



## coolasluck (Jun 15, 2011)

Its funny really,the number of threads that there have been on the overnighting signs and the law.Whilst we are fretting on them,in a village close to me,a load of travellers have descended on a field and over the course of the last few days the numbers have been swelling,i am looking forward to see how long it takes the powers that be to move them out of the field and have them evicted.The last episode down this neck of the woods cost the tax payer 3.5k.
The shame is that they will no doubt leave crap behind them and cost the local tax payer.How refreshing it would be if they cleaned up after themselves and didnt cause any trouble,alas i fear that once again travellers will be blighted by their actions and then have it reflected on us all.The loud music playing out of the field the other day doesnt bode well im afraid to say....


----------



## Pollik (Jun 16, 2011)

I seriously object to this.  I have two ex travellers among my friends.

And it is really weird - when they moved into bricks and mortar, locals saw the vans and it was children bullied at school and bricks through the windows.

They moved.

Next time they moved into a property, they went stealth and had no problems.  The years went by and they were happy.  Then another family of travellers moved into bricks and mortar and the community was up in arms, just like you sound.  Happily, my friend was chair of the residents' association and chose to come out of stealth.  There was an awful lot of egg on an awful lot of faces.

In this true story, who do you think the real evil people were?  The travellers or the people putting bricks through windows?

I am bloody seething here.


----------



## vwalan (Jun 16, 2011)

many could be waiting for the solstice .police cant move them that would be ilegal. also there are rules that say if they confiscate the vehicles then they are homeless .the local council must then give them accomodation.we do have to be carefull as i know many new age hippies /travellers that keep their vehicles better than m,home users and keep them legal. if they are on certain ground only a court order can remove them. we also dont know if any of them have actually stole anything . we do know coolasluck could be an exhibitionist by his own addmission. do we get him arrested on suspicion.i,m also a trouble causer so there. hee hee and some run off to foreign countries and blame others for what happens here. if you dont like it here make a clean break. ha ha good fun this. i blame the old folk . the middle aged and the young. even the unborn . but not me i,m perfect. cheers alan.


----------



## Neckender (Jun 17, 2011)

coolasluck said:


> Its funny really,the number of threads that there have been on the overnighting signs and the law.Whilst we are fretting on them,in a village close to me,a load of travellers have descended on a field and over the course of the last few days the numbers have been swelling,i am looking forward to see how long it takes the powers that be to move them out of the field and have them evicted.The last episode down this neck of the woods cost the tax payer 3.5k.
> The shame is that they will no doubt leave crap behind them and cost the local tax payer.How refreshing it would be if they cleaned up after themselves and didnt cause any trouble,alas i fear that once again travellers will be blighted by their actions and then have it reflected on us all.The loud music playing out of the field the other day doesnt bode well im afraid to say....



Looking at where you live coolas, is it possible that they are on their holidays.:boat:

John.


----------



## Pollik (Jun 17, 2011)

> So, Pollick, you support the travellers who leave piles of rubbish, go around breaking into sheds and garages stealing people's valuables, just because you have friends who are travellers?



I don't support anyone who leaves piles of rubbish, go around breaking into sheds and garages stealing people's valuables.

"If you read my post properly you will see that it follows another post that refers to these sort of travellers. That is why my post started with the words "It's time to stop calling oiks like this "travellers". ""

Mea culpa.  You are right and I apologise.  Before I retired, I worked with people who faced unfounded discrimination because of public perception.  I worked with people who self harmed, or have been raped or assaulted because of how they were seen.

"If you had been robbed by travellers, you would know what I mean"

Why do you specify travellers here?  Would it have been easier to bear if you had been robbed by, say, Mrs Jones over the road?  Words and phrases slip into conversation, unnoticed, which reinforce and perpetuate (in this case) that all travellers are robbers - I accept that might not be what you are trying to say.

I apologise for my over reaction, but not for being sensitive about prejudice.

On a separate note, I was sorry to read that you were having troubles at the time and you are wrong, I think it is relevant - it affects how you react, how you think.

Summer solstice - not really any different to going to church on Sunday, really.  People have different beliefs, or no religious beliefs at all.  At least the people at the summer solstice are not trying to tell me how to live my life.


----------



## vwalan (Jun 17, 2011)

[No message]


----------



## John H (Jun 17, 2011)

Isn't this comment a bit at odds with your claim that individuals should have the right to live as they please providing they do no harm to anyone else? I am no believer (in any form of religion) but surely those who consider there is some form of religious significance in Stonehenge are no more "loony" than those who believe in miracles, resurrection etc - and probably do a lot less harm. Plus - what can you possibly object to about cocking a snoot at authority? Isn't it what most of us do by wildcamping (one person's freedom is another person's freeloading)?


----------



## vwalan (Jun 17, 2011)

the bit i dont like is when i was about 12yr old  i lived for a while in gillingham dorset. we used to cycle to stonehenge and camp in amongst the stones . .there was no fence around .and no security. i have climbed all over them. i can say there is something magic about them . could be because of the size of some of the stones ,but touch them brings a tingle up your arm. its amazing . look around when you are there it is magical. there are other places where you can get this feeling . i get it at volubiss in maroc and el jem in tunisia even at the minions here in cornwall. go out to the silver mines here and look at the rocks . why does it matter if people do go and tramp over it all, its there for the people. shame some authority decides you cant go see ,touch. or pay its ok.


----------



## Devonlad (Jun 17, 2011)

I had a case of having to go to a solicitor today about getting my freehold, he
was not a available so another one seen me, a motorhome owner.
So most of the time was talking about touring. Anyway came to a point where I said to him about the no overnight parking for motorhomes, for example on Exmouth seafront
the sign says no overnight parking, but the sign shows a caravan not a motorhome?
No mention of motorhome, basically what he was saying they & other CC have cocked up
& dont have a leg to stand on if ticketed.


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Jun 18, 2011)

Devonlad said:


> I had a case of having to go to a solicitor today about getting my freehold, he
> was not a available so another one seen me, a motorhome owner.
> So most of the time was talking about touring. Anyway came to a point where I said to him about the no overnight parking for motorhomes, for example on Exmouth seafront
> the sign says no overnight parking, but the sign shows a caravan not a motorhome?
> ...


 
But would he put his money where his mouth is and conduct a "no win no fee" case if you were ticketed?

A Motorhome is a Caravan in the eyes of the law.
"caravan" means any structure designed or adapted for 
human habitation which is capable of being moved 
from one place to another (whether by being towed, or 
by being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer) and 
any motor vehicle so designed or adapted,


----------



## John H (Jun 18, 2011)

Perhaps it was your use of the word "loony" and your description of them as a bunch of self-deluding wasters. You now add to that "pathetic". I may be wrong but that doesn't sound to me like support!


----------



## coolasluck (Jun 18, 2011)

. we do know coolasluck could be an exhibitionist by his own addmission. 





How dare you Allan:lol-053:

Calm down people we dont need another squabble on here(oh go on it is fun).

I have to say i do not tar them with the brush of being thieves,time will only tell,i have even thought about going up and having a chat with them.
I am interested in full timing so would find these folks stories interesting.
I really do hope that they do not start thieving though,it is unfair to cast dispersions at people who are just trying to live a differant life to the norm.The thing that does get me pissed off is taking over some innocents property without there consent,it does seem that if you own a piece of land or a property any tennant or tresspaser seems to get all the rights.
As an aside to the travellers in the field near me some of the residents are of the opinion that they are keeping themselves to themselves and are not currently causing any nuisance.There is one resident though ,who my work freind with whom i deliver the post to the village with,said that was writing letters all over the place and to anyone that will listen in venting his anger.My freind said that he found it amusing that this resident was so angry and upset and stated that he was a real tit who had given him a load of unnessasry abuse  some months back:lol-053:


----------



## Devonlad (Jun 18, 2011)

John Thompson said:


> But would he put his money where his mouth is and conduct a "no win no fee" case if you were ticketed?
> 
> A Motorhome is a Caravan in the eyes of the law.
> "caravan" means any structure designed or adapted for
> ...



But the pictures show a caravan with a tow hitch


----------



## Marcs (Jun 18, 2011)

That argument may work for a "no caravans" sign, but not "no overnight parking" there is a significant difference.


----------



## AndyC (Jun 18, 2011)

This is the official sign which must be used where on-street parking regulations apply to caravans and motor caravans.




As far as I can tell from the Traffic Signs Manual it can ONLY be used in conjunction with the familiar 'P' parking sign to indicate a place where parking is permitted only for car/caravan combinations and motor caravans.

I'm not familiar with the sign at Exmouth seafront, but if it is an on-street sign, it must comply with Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.

AndyC


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Jun 18, 2011)

Devonlad said:


> But the pictures show a caravan with a tow hitch


 
Whatever the picture shows, if it says Caravan it means any vehicle constructed or addapted for human habitation. (Caravan sites and Control of Development Act 1960)

Nothumberland Coast has lots of signs saying no camping.  By this they mean sleeping in anything.  Camping in the eys of the law is in a tent or other structure. (Public Health Act 1937)

If you take your picture argument to the limit it would have to show a trailer tent, Caravan, PVC, Camper van, Motor Caravan, 5th Wheeler, Demountable. single or double decker bus, or a van used as a stealth camper.  They simplify matters by using a caravan picture.

It could be further argued that a waggon sleepercab with a bed is a caravan or a Coach with a sleeping compartment of off duty crew could be also classed as a caravan.


----------



## AndyC (Jun 19, 2011)

Perhaps someone could post a picture of the sign at Exmouth....

AndyC


----------



## vwalan (Jun 19, 2011)

a fifth wheeler is not a m,home ,nor a car .it is a commercial vehicle pulling a caravan or living van. it comes back to the c&u. category of m for cars n for commercials. i do have a problem in spain as i use the camper excuse to the guardia ,luckily only one as ever said no you are a truck. he then went on to say if parked without obstructing anyone it was regarded in spain a truck can park one night just about anywhere. they park them all over the place ,housing estates etc . depends where the driver lives as well i think. 
on the north coast of spain on sundays when trucks arent working its like every house as a truck parked by it . never get away with it here. 
certainly in spain the caravan sign seems to be only for caravans .they are putting up new signs now banning all m,vehicles from parking overnight in many places. 
cheers alan


----------



## vwalan (Jun 19, 2011)

i agree . i find i prefer just drifting around there than doing the drive through france. much better than med spain. and better than the algarve. i was looking through my diaries to let you know of good spots but like you i find all of it good. are you trying to be on the nearest road/track to the sea . we found some forest driving that i was glad i wasnt wider. take it you are near lisbon now?there really are so many nice places. we could have stayed at some for weeks and never see anybody in winter. very often a bit blowy but still warm . we did get alot of rain 2 winters ago. but then never ran out of water. we find it hard to do any distance before we find another good place. shame its not as warm as maroc in winter. but then if uk was as hot as that we could stay here . have fun and enjoy the adventure. cheers alan.
i should be a tour giude have thought about it a few times.europe and beyond.


----------



## vwalan (Jun 19, 2011)

just belowsao pedro de muel is a good place its a kind of recreation park with exercise things .barby area and water .praia de toche is ok. and alittle bit further up is an unknown beach on white road near dunas de cantenheda.then up to aveiro loads of nice places around there just keep exploring.furadouroas loads of parking as well. south side is best. 
next time we can do a tour of inland portugal . deposits taken send a cheque. cheers alan.


----------



## vwalan (Jun 19, 2011)

best take the 108 then go south of the river on the 222 . difficult as both drift away at times. 
the river tamega might suit you better. trouble is portugal does have high mountains that get in the way alot. dont think any thought of tourists were ever made in inland portugal.but thats what makes it so interesting.shame as i have a book called off the beaten track portugal. goes to quite a few places of interest but not known to many. sao vicente near where the rivers meet as roman baths remains.
you could go inland from figueira de foz to coimbra then have a look around the lakes etc.its all endless so much to see. we used tospend time around arganil and gois .nothing much there but we liked it. like all inland portugal good markets.


----------



## VeeDub (Jun 23, 2011)

John Thompson said:


> Whatever the picture shows, if it says Caravan it means any vehicle constructed or addapted for human habitation. (Caravan sites and Control of Development Act 1960)
> 
> Nothumberland Coast has lots of signs saying no camping.  By this they mean sleeping in anything.  Camping in the eys of the law is in a tent or other structure. (Public Health Act 1937)
> 
> ...


 

I wonder then John if there is a 'discrete' policy of positive discrimination (i.e 'turning a blind-eye') as regards HGV drivers? Most of us long-distance drivers live in our vehicles from Monday to Friday/Saturday and, at the end of each working day, find the nearest nook/cranny/layby/industrial estate [delete as appropriate] to 'overnight' in ... without ever encountering the wrath of the local Police or Council Officials.  I suppose that, under the current definitions, then we must also be legally classed as 'Caravans' (to all intents and purposes) - and yet - that said, I have NEVER been asked to move on in the last thirty-odd years that I have been 'on the road'.  What, I wonder, is the difference between me parking overnight in a Layby in my truck without Let or Hindrance, and returning the following evening and repeating the process in my Campervan?  Were I to be prosecuted for doing this in my 'Van then I wonder if I could contest the case on the grounds of setting a precedence in my Truck?


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Jun 23, 2011)

VeeDub said:


> I wonder then John if there is a 'discrete' policy of positive discrimination (i.e 'turning a blind-eye') as regards HGV drivers? Most of us long-distance drivers live in our vehicles from Monday to Friday/Saturday and, at the end of each working day, find the nearest nook/cranny/layby/industrial estate [delete as appropriate] to 'overnight' in ... without ever encountering the wrath of the local Police or Council Officials.  I suppose that, under the current definitions, then we must also be legally classed as 'Caravans' (to all intents and purposes) - and yet - that said, I have NEVER been asked to move on in the last thirty-odd years that I have been 'on the road'.  What, I wonder, is the difference between me parking overnight in a Layby in my truck without Let or Hindrance, and returning the following evening and repeating the process in my Campervan?  Were I to be prosecuted for doing this in my 'Van then I wonder if I could contest the case on the grounds of setting a precedence in my Truck?


 
Yes there is a blind eye turned.  Also commercial drivers can claim they are out of hours if challenged.  If required to move they can ask the officer concerned to put it in writing that they are driving under the instructions of a police officer, with their name, number and station on the document.  I doubt if they would then enforce the move.  

As far as parking a motorhome in a lay-by etc. is concerned, as long as it/you complies with the law and is not causing an obstruction I doubt if you would be moved.  Again you can claim that you were feeling tired and for road safety reasons you stopped for a rest.  
You would not be processed for just stopping in those circumstances.  You would not be staying there longer than necessary.  
If however you stayed for a day or two then you could expect to moved on.  

The owner of a caravan/motorhome is *not* prosecuted for parking on land.  The offence is that "the landowner permitted the caravan to park there", without a site licence or exemption in place.  The landowner is liable, not the person in the van.  The local authority planning department prosecute not the police
However if you refuse to move, then you can be evicted by a court order.  This is how it takes so long to move members of the travelling community on.
The police are not involved in this, unless there is violence or a threat of violence from either party or there are more than 6 persons or vehicle involved.


----------



## Bigpeetee (Jun 23, 2011)

The answer to VeeDub's question is jealousy!!

People get jealous of those who have Motorhomes, even if they're 20+ years old. Consider them to have loads of money to own one, this from those that have top of the range BMW, Merc etc.

Prob also terrified that if they question a "Big burly trucker" about parking, they're going to get a mouthful of abuse. Whereas if they complain about a motorhomer, they won't.

Little do they know about truckers and MHers!!!

There's a piece in the local rag complaining about a fisherman who regularly brings his caravan and parks at the end of the prom (actually owned by the railways)

"They saw him throw his rubbish into the sea"

What actually happened was that he comes every couple of weeks for a long weekend, tidies up the cans and bottles and it was a couple of youths who threw the rubbish into the sea.

As usual getting it wrong again.

Also noticable is that when the "Holiday Fortnight" fishermen come, part of their tackle is a crate of beer, most of the bottles/cans are disposed of in the sea, you only have to walk along the tide line to see the mess, but these are "tourists" and we can't upset them???


----------



## torwood (Jun 23, 2011)

Have a look at the advice on the Money Saving Expert website in case you fall foul of a parking ticket Glovebox parking aid: Emergency PDF guide to beat tickets...


----------



## VeeDub (Jun 23, 2011)

John Thompson said:


> ... If however you stayed for a day or two then you could expect to moved on.


 
Isn't this the knub of the matter John?   - in that these (probably) out-dated By-Laws which, one assumes, were originally draughted and designed to deter Vagrants (et.al.) from setting up semi-permanent Camps in Public Parking Areas, now have the hitherto unforseen effect of criminalising an altogether different Class of traveller? Ergo -  We, (the Wilding Community), are now to be also classed as Itinerants???

Ho Hum ....

I feel the urge to indulge in some correspondence;

Dear 'Dave',

I know that you are busy with 'Cleggy' and Libya and Afghanistan and all that but ....    lol


----------



## vwalan (Jun 23, 2011)

certainly in the 80,s many truck parks were closed and truckers went through a few years of grief . it seems to have died away now .i remember running out of hours and couldnt find a good place to stop. drove on for half hour .looking . didnt get in trouble but could have done. now i can stay in my mini artic just about anywhere . so long as there isnt a camper with us . most of my travelling companions drive truck conversions.
good reason for having them.


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Jun 24, 2011)

VeeDub said:


> Isn't this the knub of the matter John?   - in that these (probably) out-dated By-Laws which, one assumes, were originally draughted and designed to deter Vagrants (et.al.) from setting up semi-permanent Camps in Public Parking Areas, now have the hitherto unforseen effect of criminalising an altogether different Class of traveller? Ergo -  We, (the Wilding Community), are now to be also classed as Itinerants???
> 
> Ho Hum ....
> 
> ...


 
It is the other way around.  Those laws were introduced because so many people were "wild camping" because there was no formal structure of sites. The 1937 Public Health Act brought in hygene standards for camping in tents or any other structure.

They were introduced to prevent damage to the countryside by indiscriminate camping and campfires being lit.  People were fouling the countryside by doing what the bears do.  The 1960 Act took on any caravan towed or self propelled and formalised the licencing of sites to provide facilities for clean drinking water and to provide proper toilet and washing facilities.  The act also made provision for properly constituted clubs that agreed to maintain standards to camp other than on sites.

With todays motorhomes they are outdated but caravans and campervans that do not have water and waste storage still need the formal site structure.

It did not criminalise the camper.  It was the landowner who was charged with preventing unauthorised camping and put limits on how long he could permit camping without a site licence.


----------



## hotrats (Aug 2, 2016)

*dog*



baloothebear said:


> I'm very interested in this comment. We have had a rash of very narrow yellow and double yellow lines appear in our high street. They seem to be very narrow compared to what I have been used to seeing over the years - any ideas or suggestions would be helpful



Is that a blue healer you have?


----------

