Clive George wrote:
On 16/07/2010 17:23, John wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 16/07/2010 17:06, John wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 16/07/2010 16:22, John wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 16/07/2010 11:59, John wrote:

The point that you (and everyone else it would seem) are
missing is that it is not a _public_ car park, it is _Lidl's_
car park. I assume that when Lidl were spending the time,
money and effort to build a car park outside their shop, they
were intending it to be for their own customers. The fact that
they didn't explicitly state this on a sign somewhere, or
barrier it off to all except Lidl customers should not matter.
The car park is on their land, outside their store, so by
implication the car park is for their customers.

The OP is a customer of Lidl. So where's the problem?

And so we come full circle.

The problem is that the OP was a customer of Lidl for a few
minutes and then went off doing general shopping, leaving his
car occupying a Lidl parking space when he wasn't a customer of
Lidl.

I describe myself as a customer of various places, even though at
the moment I'm sitting at a computer.

It's in Lidl's interest to let him do reasonable amounts of other
business, otherwise there's no point in him visiting the store at
all, and there goes a customer.

One could argue that if he was preventing another customer from
shopping there they've lost out, but there seems to be no such
indication - nobody has said the car park was full.

But it might have been.

That's not good enough. Was it? If not, you've got no point.

Of course it's good enough. It doesn't matter if the car park was
full or empty. The whole point is that someone should not use a car
parking space meant for patrons of one particular place and then go
off somewhere else. It's just plain wrong and discourteous.

There we disagree. I've explained why it's not, and indeed is in the
interest of the provider of that car park to allow that to happen.

Fair enough - we disagree.