CUK Winter Holiday

[Peoplesoft bloke]

I don't disagree with you that there are freeloaders on that site, you get them everywhere. I was only supporting Bookworm who was attacked personally.

All she was trying to do was point out the legality of the situation. The company would need to prove who was the driver at the time and therefore liable, that any notices were both clearly visible and valid, that the driver impliedly accepted the contract by parking having seen and read the notices, that the charge is proportionate with any loss or reasonable cost and is not at all punitive.

She wasn't saying 'up yours, people can park anywhere'.

"impliedly" isn't a word. If people are going to play at being laywers they could at least learn English.

As for bookworm, that's exactly what she was saying. In fact she was saying that people can park anywhere and if you as a landowner don't like it, yo have to resort to costly and time-consuming measures just because a significant minority refuse to accept any responsibilty for their own actions.

[Incognito]

Incognito, you have completely lost all credibility on CUK. Not only are you defending it's rather puritanical posters, you also went on there to get templates to claim back bank charges!!!

Shame on you, a contractor should always have plenty of cash in the bank and if you did get charges you should have flung your head back, laughed and thrown the cashier a couple of fifties for your lack of bank account management.

Please see above post, not defending all posters.

I was a young, poor and humble sailor for 6 years and racked up nearly 5 grands worth of charges in that time because I'd have my feeble wages spent by end of week 1 and the banks just seemed to love racking charges up on charges. I paid £500 in charges one month whilst I was in Singapore. The problem was that Lloyds quite happily let me withdraw money that wasn't in my account and I had no way of knowing my balance so relied on the old, 'if it's letting me take the cash out there must be some in' theory.

[The Lone Gunman]

I don't disagree with you that there are freeloaders on that site, you get them everywhere. I was only supporting Bookworm who was attacked personally.

All she was trying to do was point out the legality of the situation. The company would need to prove who was the driver at the time and therefore liable, that any notices were both clearly visible and valid, that the driver impliedly accepted the contract by parking having seen and read the notices, that the charge is proportionate with any loss or reasonable cost and is not at all punitive.

She wasn't saying 'up yours, people can park anywhere'.

Considering the bloke posting stated it was him in the car your first point is not valid. He also posted a selected set of photos from the area from some odd angles all of which appear to be at head height for anyone walking past them. There also clearly a number of signs he did not picture that loo remarkably like private parking signs to me. Yet everyone on that site including bookworm is looking to support the OP and is busy trying to find loopholes instead of telling him he is a dickhead.

[Incognito]

"impliedly" isn't a word. If people are going to play at being laywers they could at least learn English.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Impliedly

[Incognito]

Considering the bloke posting stated it was him in the car your first point is not valid. He also posted a selected set of photos from the area from some odd angles all of which appear to be at head height for anyone walking past them. There also clearly a number of signs he did not picture that loo remarkably like private parking signs to me. Yet everyone on that site including bookworm is looking to support the OP and is busy trying to find loopholes instead of telling him he is a dickhead.

I've not read that thread, I was posting about MF's thread which you all jumped on.

[Incognito]

"impliedly" isn't a word. If people are going to play at being laywers they could at least learn English.

And as no doubt you'll not accept an online dictionary definition,

http://www.bwmaonline.com/Legal%20-%...0in%20full.htm

Paragraph 37

Mr Shrimpton made much of the doctrine of implied repeal. The rule is that if Parliament has enacted successive statutes which on the true construction of each of them make irreducibly inconsistent provisions, the earlier statute is impliedly repealed by the later. The importance of the rule is, on the traditional view, that if it were otherwise the earlier Parliament might bind the later, and this would be repugnant to the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty.

And I'm not playing at lawyers; I'm studying at lawyers to be more precise.

[The Lone Gunman]

I've not read that thread, I was posting about MF's thread which you all jumped on.

The 2 threads need to be read in conjunction. Bookworms advice is still that anybody can park on anybody else's land if anybody else has not put in legal mechanisms to stop them. It is this selfish attitude we are jumping on. Why should MF have to go to these lengths to stop people parking where they know they should not? If they are unsure if it is legal to park somewhere then their first response should be at assume it is not and to go elsewhere.

[Incognito]

The 2 threads need to be read in conjunction. Bookworms advice is still that anybody can park on anybody else's land if anybody else has not put in legal mechanisms to stop them. It is this selfish attitude we are jumping on. Why should MF have to go to these lengths to stop people parking where they know they should not? If they are unsure if it is legal to park somewhere then their first response should be at assume it is not and to go elsewhere.

Well I've not got time to read it, if that's true then yes I agree with you that, that is morally repugnant, however I still hold true to my original point that she ain't a bad old girl really.

I also don't dispute it's unfair that MF should have to stump up because lazy people are parking on his land, I'm simply trying to be objective about it.

p.s I had a great quote from Atiyah about the law not being fair, but for the life of me I can't remember it.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

And as no doubt you'll not accept an online dictionary definition,

http://www.bwmaonline.com/Legal%20-%...0in%20full.htm

Paragraph 37



And I'm not playing at lawyers; I'm studying at lawyers to be more precise.

Ok so some lawyer who as already passed his exams has made up a word. That you claim to be studying one of the most reprehensible occupations known to man speaks volumes to me and explains a lot. I thought IT contractors got paid a lot for mucking about with stuff and knowing sod all until I needed a lawyer

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Sorry didn't see the link to the dictionary - I am prepared to accept that. You were right, I was wrong (about the word).