In article , Alan Gauton
wrote:


Me too - I would also love it if they do that for parents and kids
spaces as well.

Kids are self inflicted. Disability in general is not. Therefore, your kids
can walk and make way for those who genuinely can't.

--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk

"Zak" wrote in message
...
This is slightly off-topic but posted to groups where I figure
people would have some good ideas to help me out.

------

I live in a small block of flats near London. When they go
shopping some people like to park in our car park. If this does
not happen much then we just accept it.

However, recently a small number of strangers have started parking
here regularly and some leave their car here all day while they
are at work.

There is entry no barrier to our car park and the warning notices
and (fake) clamping notices on the car park walls are ignored.
These peristent parkers also ignore our little notes left under
the wipers asking them not to park in our car park.

SO THIS IS MY PLAN. I reckon I should now stick a A4-sized
"Please Do Not Park Here" notice on the windscreen of these
regular parkers and make sure the notice is attached with some
sort of glue that takes them a long time to remove.

What do you suggest I use for glue? If I use some rubbery sort of
compound like Bostik or Evostik then it will cost quite a bit as I
probably need a tube of the glue for each notice. If I use a
hard-setting glue like superglue then it will probably come off
with an ice-scraper as the wind screen will probably be a bit
dirty & dusty.

Can I buy and preprinted EXTRA-MESSY self adhesive notices which
say "Please Do Not Park Here" ?


Make too much of a mess and YOU could be charged with criminal damage, even
though it is a private car park. Sad but true.

In article , "Zak"
lid says...
Zak wrote:

Hmm, Solvite. That sounds good. Cheaper than the fancy
adhesives too. I was thinking that I should use some really
crappy paper so that the sheet left half itself when the driver
driver tried to remove it.

On Fri 20 May 2005 14:12:17, John Rumm wrote:

If you want the driver to run over some innocent pedestrian
because he can't see out of the car.....


Of course the driver will realise that his car is not roadworthy and
that he must not drive it on public roads.

That's not how the law sees it.

"Zak" wrote in message
...

So we leaseholders (i.e. residents) effectively own the car park
and we are responsible for it.

Would your actions, (possible criminal damage) be representative of
all the other 'residents'?

In article , "Zak"
lid says...
The flats are privately owned and the landlord is a private
individual. So the landlord of the flats is the owner in law of
the car park.

The landlord has leased (for 999 years) the car park to the
maintenance company which is designated to run the flats. The car
park is clearly shown in the lease.

The maintenance company is operated by the 12 residents (who are
the shareholders and from which the directors of the company are
appointed).

Through the maintenance charges the leaseholders pay for the
upkeep, maintenance, improvement, cleaning, etc of the car park.

So we leaseholders (i.e. residents) effectively own the car park
and we are responsible for it.

So the maintenance company is legally in a position to engage a
licensed wheel clamping company to clamp unauthorised vehicles - why
don't you get them to do that?

Zak wrote:

On Fri 20 May 2005 14:12:48, Johannes H Andersen wrote:



Zak wrote:

This is slightly off-topic but posted to groups where I figure
people would have some good ideas to help me out.

So if it's off-topic, that justifies excessive cross posting?

1. It is criminal damage.

Johannes, why not check out "cross-posting" in Google and see how
many crossposts GNKSA recommends as a working maximum before it gives
its seal of approval.

What GNKSA recommends is not the issue here. Cross posting, like this
one, causes clutter and is irrelevant to many more readers.

Alan Gauton ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

We've all seen perfectly able-bodied people abusing blue badges, too.

How do you know they're able-bodied? Some of my family have a blue
badge, but don't look like they need it. Sometimes the problems are
internal, not obvious, such as having lungs missing, ....

Absolutely.

However, if they're walking perfectly normally, there's no NEED for them to
use a disabled slot, even if they do have some medical condition. The
disabled slots are there for those who can't walk from the far end of the
car park, or who need the extra width to open their doors more fully
because of mobility problems.

Me too - I would also love it if they do that for parents and kids
spaces as well.

Personally, I wish people would leave their bloody kids at home when
they go to the supermarket. It'd make *everybody's* shopping less
unpleasant without the whining fractious brats that don't want to be
there.

So when I go to Asda to pick up my wife after work, I leave my 4 year
old and my 17 month (disabled) at home.

Do you drag them round the store, letting them run wild and get in
everybody's way?

Not everybody can leave them at home.

No, but most can. And chose not to.

Zak wrote:

[...]

So I just want to be "over-enthusiastic" with my adhesive. Not
obviously causing trouble (heh!) but just making a simple mistake
about how sticky it is.

Paper perforated into squares makes removal more time consuming too.


A

--
Trade Oil in €

The message
from sme contains these words:

Surely a blue disability badge would have told him if the car owner was
disabled?

Or a passenger. Trouble is, the badges are ridiculously easy to get hold
of. When my wife's expired shortly after we moved to Telford we rang up
the bod and explained, they sent a form which we completed and sent off
£2 and a photo and back came the blue wossname. No checks on
(in)validity at all.

--
Skipweasel.
Ivor Cutler - "Never knowingly understood."

The message . 170
from Adrian contains these words:

Personally, I wish people would leave their bloody kids at home when they
go to the supermarket. It'd make *everybody's* shopping less unpleasant
without the whining fractious brats that don't want to be there.

Trouble is, if you avoid any situation where the kids have to behave
themselves then they'll never learn to behave themselves.

Of course, it might be nice if the parents of some little darlings
actually gave a toss.

--
Skipweasel.
Ivor Cutler - "Never knowingly understood."

Alan Gauton ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

Surely a blue disability badge would have told him if the car owner
was disabled?

no, it tells you if the driver has a blue badge. Many disabled do not
have those badges.

No, it tells you an occupant of the car is disabled.

No, it tells you that somebody who *might* be an occupant of the car is
disabled.

My M-i-L has MS and is in a wheelchair. We've not bothered to renew her old
orange badge, but before it expired it lived in my car glovebox at all
times.

The message .com
from contains these words:

Surely a blue disability badge would have told him if the car owner
was
disabled?

no, it tells you if the driver has a blue badge. Many disabled do not
have those badges.


Doesn't have to be the driver. Passengers are just as entitled to hold a
blue badge.

--
Skipweasel.
Ivor Cutler - "Never knowingly understood."

Zak wrote:

I think that the extent of the criminal in this case damage is
rather limited. I do not propose to etch the windscreen or to
actually damage it.

In fact with a bit of work and the right solvents and a good pair
of overalls it could all be sorted out in half an hour. No more
than a tenner including labout I would guess.

If you are the driver and have to go and fetch those items but
have no car to travel in then it would take much longer.

Hardly worth pursuing a court case over.

You do not have to actually cause damage to be convicted of Criminal Damage.

One of the earlier cases brought under the Criminal Damage Act 1971
involved a tyre being let down. The person was convicted of Criminal
Damage and appealed. The appeal court, on upholding the conviction, said
that the act of letting down the tyre had caused the owner to take an
action that he would not have otherwise have had to do (pumping up the
tyre).

By affixing the sticky label, you would cause the owner to take an
action that he would not have otherwise have had to do and, therefore,
would be committing an offence under the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

--
Howard Neil

Grouch wrote on Fri, 20 May 2005 10:23:16 GMT:
Hmmm! don't anyone see spam when it's in front of them?


You obviously don't. It isn't spam by any means, and 4 newsgroups
isn't really even "excessive cross-posting".

In fact, it's a question posted to multiple groups with (admittedly rather
tenuous) relevance to each of them. In other words, it's what usenet
and crossposting was designed for.

Do you really beleive that anything posted to 4 newsgroups is spam?
Why then, would it be possible to post to 4 newsgroups at a time?

More to the point, it isn't advertising something, it's asking
a question.

--
David Taylor

Guy King ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Trouble is, the badges are ridiculously easy to get hold
of. When my wife's expired shortly after we moved to Telford we rang up
the bod and explained, they sent a form which we completed and sent off
£2 and a photo and back came the blue wossname. No checks on
(in)validity at all.

Yebbut, that was a renewal. Try getting a new one. My old man can't,
despite being unable to walk very far at all, even with sticks.

Mary Fisher wrote on Fri, 20 May 2005 12:18:15 +0100:

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
t...
Or just employ a wheel clamping firm. I can't imagine they would
charge you given the profits

The problem is that these firms get out of control. They'll start clamping
not only your visitors, but the owner's cars too, and ambulances, police
cars, slow moving zimmer frames etc.

You know, Christian, if you want to sound humorous you should use a smily.

********. Are people so dense they need smilies to appreciate humour?

Ever heard of deadpan humour?

If you're serious you're not sensible.

But more to the point, it's not humour. I suspect he was serious,
and regardless, he's right. Perhaps not every clamping company
is as over-zealous, but there are numerous examples available
through google...

--
David Taylor

"Zak" wrote in message
...


Of course the driver will realise that his car is not roadworthy and
that he must not drive it on public roads.

A triumph of faith over reason!

Mary

"Adrian" wrote in message
..

Personally, I wish people would leave their bloody kids at home when they
go to the supermarket.

You don't have to shop at the supermarket.

Mary

"Alan Gauton" wrote in message


How do you know they're able-bodied? Some of my family have a blue
badge, but don't look like they need it. Sometimes the problems are
internal, not obvious, such as having lungs missing, ....

Missing lungs don't necessarily disable one.

Our champion hill climber in the cycling club only had one lung.

Mary

"Steve Walker" wrote in message news:e9

Yes, if they also enforced a "no accompanied breeders" area where one
could park without someone else's little darlings denting the car doors.

You might have been someone's little darling once ...

Mary

--
Steve Walker

In article ,
says...

"Adrian" wrote in message
.

Personally, I wish people would leave their bloody kids at home when they
go to the supermarket.

You don't have to shop at the supermarket.

And while some people need to take their kids with them, they also need
to understand that they have a responsibility to ensure they behave.

--
AndyT.

Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional.
- Anon.

"Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Alan Gauton
wrote:


Me too - I would also love it if they do that for parents and kids
spaces as well.

Kids are self inflicted. Disability in general is not. Therefore, your
kids
can walk and make way for those who genuinely can't.

You don't understand. Parent and children spaces are wider than normal
parking spaces to enable a pushchair (or trolley) to be put at the side of
the carand the child unstrapped from the seat, loaded into the
pushchair )or trolley) and strapped in again. That's very difficult in a
normal parking space. It's even worse if you have more than one young child.

The special parking bays aren't necessarily closer to the shop than others
nor are they for children who can walk but when they are they do make it
easier for other shoppers because the child laden trolleys or pushchairs
aren't obstructing others.

Mary

--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk

In message , Alan
Gauton writes
In article .com,
says...

Surely a blue disability badge would have told him if the car owner
was
disabled?

no, it tells you if the driver has a blue badge. Many disabled do not
have those badges.

No, it tells you an occupant of the car is disabled. We don't have one
for our son because he is a) too young, and b) not disabled enough
(which is stupid given he has a physical and mental disability).

I have a friend with a son who is severely mentally and physically
disabled. This lad would carry on struggling long after others had given
in. To get a disabled badge (or any other disability allowance) you had
to 'prove' you couldn't walk the length of the hospital corridor. You
could not say to him "Give in when it hurts - make it look bad" So he
was taken for a loooong walk around before his interview, by which time
he was too knackered to walk along the said corridor.
Possibly slightly dishonest, but not as bad as the dishonesty of some
claimants
--
Sue Begg
Remove my clothes to reply

Do not mess in the affairs of dragons - for
you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

On Fri, 20 May 2005 14:43:21 +0100, Rob Morley
wrote:

So the maintenance company is legally in a position to engage a
licensed wheel clamping company to clamp unauthorised vehicles - why
don't you get them to do that?

That could be far and away the most sensible answer to the problem.

I'm sure the company would do this at no cost to the rezzies, but
you'd need to negotiate the terms with them, after getting authority
from the management committee.

For the first Saturday of operation, ensure the rezzies park somewhere
else, in order to maximise the potential for outsider parking in the
car park. The clamping company could earn big money that day, and the
persistent parkers will quickly get the message.

Mary Fisher ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

Personally, I wish people would leave their bloody kids at home when
they go to the supermarket.

You don't have to shop at the supermarket.

Nor do they.
Nor do they have to inflict their repulsive crotchfruit on me.

I have at least as much right to be there, if not more, than the kids do,
and I'm causing those parents FAR less inconvenience by going to the
supermarket than they cause me by taking their ASBO-trainees with them.

I don't understand the mentality of parents. If I were to inflict my choice
of childlessness upon them, they would scream blue murder. So why is it
perfectly OK for them to inflict their choice on me?

In message , Mary
Fisher writes

"Steve Walker" wrote in message news:e9

Yes, if they also enforced a "no accompanied breeders" area where one
could park without someone else's little darlings denting the car doors.

You might have been someone's little darling once ...

I certainly wouldn't have been allowed to damage other people's
property.

--
Steve Walker

In message , Zak
writes
On Fri 20 May 2005 10:30:03, Pete M wrote:


Don't use adhesive.

You know what's 10 times as annoying?

McDonalds gherkins.

If you put one of those on a window on a sunny day, they're a
total pig to remove. Has to be a genuine McDonalds one though,
it's the sauce... They have the same adhesive qualities as a
sticky thing, and said parkers will think kids have been
targeting their cars.. We all know the last people we want
messing with our car is kids. Scarier than any label, sticker
etc.

Alternatively, just put up with people parking in your car park,
or move to somewhere where there's more room. After all, who'd
live down South?

Now this sounds rather nice. But who can guarantee a sunny day? And
there is no McDonalds nearby but I reckon that something like brown
sauce (or something similar) might do the trick if it hards enough to
be essentially insoluble in windscreenwasher water.

Try condensed milk - I can remember my mother sticking a couple of tiles
back onto the fireplace with it when I was a child --long time ago :-))
--
Sue Begg
Remove my clothes to reply

Do not mess in the affairs of dragons - for
you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

"Howard Neil" wrote in message
...

By affixing the sticky label, you would cause the owner to take an action
that he would not have otherwise have had to do and, therefore, would be
committing an offence under the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

So I could sue spammers for criminal damage?

"Zak" wrote in message
...
On Fri 20 May 2005 10:22:43, Mary Fisher wrote:

It's probably illegal to do such a thing but I do sympathise
with you.


"Zak" wrote in message

I wonder if it as illegal as some people suggest. This is a
vehicle (although it could be a wheelbarrow or a large oil drum
as far as I care) which is on our property.


On Fri 20 May 2005 14:07:44, Depresion wrote:

That's a cyvil matter, what you are proposing could be classed
as criminal damadge, as the name sugests that's a criminal
matter. Unless you are very careful you could end up with a
criminal record and the possibility of jail time. (Unfortunately
not enough of a possibility of jail time as criminal damage
doesn't attract the sort of sentencing it once did.)


I think that the extent of the criminal in this case damage is
rather limited. I do not propose to etch the windscreen or to
actually damage it.

You don't have to.

In fact with a bit of work and the right solvents and a good pair
of overalls it could all be sorted out in half an hour. No more
than a tenner including labout I would guess.

That could still be concidered criminal damadge.

My best advice would be higher a legal advisor befor doing anything shouldnt'
cost you more than a couple of grand to clear up how harsh the courts will be.

In message , Johannes
writes


Zak wrote:

On Fri 20 May 2005 14:12:48, Johannes H Andersen wrote:



Zak wrote:

This is slightly off-topic but posted to groups where I figure
people would have some good ideas to help me out.

So if it's off-topic, that justifies excessive cross posting?

1. It is criminal damage.

Johannes, why not check out "cross-posting" in Google and see how
many crossposts GNKSA recommends as a working maximum before it gives
its seal of approval.

What GNKSA recommends is not the issue here. Cross posting, like this
one, causes clutter and is irrelevant to many more readers.

It is clearly headed with its content. If you are not interested then
simply do not read it and leave the rest of us to our amusing
conversation.
With all respect etc. etc.
--
Sue Begg
Remove my clothes to reply

Do not mess in the affairs of dragons - for
you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

In message . 170,
Adrian writes
Mary Fisher ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

Personally, I wish people would leave their bloody kids at home when
they go to the supermarket.

You don't have to shop at the supermarket.

Nor do they.
Nor do they have to inflict their repulsive crotchfruit on me.

I have at least as much right to be there, if not more, than the kids do,
and I'm causing those parents FAR less inconvenience by going to the
supermarket than they cause me by taking their ASBO-trainees with them.

I don't understand the mentality of parents. If I were to inflict my choice
of childlessness upon them, they would scream blue murder. So why is it
perfectly OK for them to inflict their choice on me?

From the supermarkets point of view it is in their interests to
encourage children because the parents spend a lot more.
My kids have grown up but I can remember well
--
Sue Begg
Remove my clothes to reply

Do not mess in the affairs of dragons - for
you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

On Fri, 20 May 2005 11:55:45 GMT and in uk.rec.cars.misc, Adrian
wrote....

Alan Gauton ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

The notices say the bays are for Blue Badge holders. The Blue Badges
have to be displayed in the front of the car.

I wish that more supermarkets enforced the rules.

Yep, but *intelligently*.

My father's currently waiting for both knees to be replaced, and can
barely walk, even with two sticks. However, because it's a relatively
short-term thing, he can't get a blue badge.

Why can't he get a blue badge? Has he tried? AFAIK you can get one
automatically if you receive full DLA. A little known fact though is you
can apply for one at the discretion of the issuers. Pop into your local
Social Work office and ask them for a form for a blue badge, they will
probably ask if you get full DLA, tell them nope you want to apply for a
discretionary one and they give you a form, to be filled out with your
doctor. If he is getting his knees replaced then surely he will still
have problems after the operations.

He's been threatened with
clamping in his local supermarket for parking in the disabled bays, as
they are blue-badge only. We've all seen perfectly able-bodied people
abusing blue badges, too.

I am able bodied and have a blue badge. I get it due to having no kidneys
and being on dialysis.

Me too - I would also love it if they do that for parents and kids
spaces as well.

Personally, I wish people would leave their bloody kids at home when
they go to the supermarket. It'd make *everybody's* shopping less
unpleasant without the whining fractious brats that don't want to be
there. I also wish they'd train the little ****s to look and think
before slamming car doors open onto other people's cars - but since
many adults seem unable to do that themselves...

Agreed.

--
sme

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
t...
And how did you know who was disabled and who wasnt? You sound like a
genuine plonker.

There's a national scheme for disabled badges that indicates which cars
are
permitted to used disabled spaces.

I choose not to apply for a badge, but I often have problems managing
shopping, so frequently use the disabled spaces at the supermarket. Should I
have to spend hours trying to get my window clean for daring not to give the
civil service even more paperwork?

David Taylor loved her ferret enough to say...
Grouch wrote on Fri, 20 May 2005 10:23:16 GMT:
Hmmm! don't anyone see spam when it's in front of them?


You obviously don't. It isn't spam by any means, and 4 newsgroups
isn't really even "excessive cross-posting".

In fact, it's a question posted to multiple groups with (admittedly rather
tenuous) relevance to each of them. In other words, it's what usenet
and crossposting was designed for.

Do you really beleive that anything posted to 4 newsgroups is spam?
Why then, would it be possible to post to 4 newsgroups at a time?

More to the point, it isn't advertising something, it's asking
a question.



In Grouch's defence, this post has also been crossposted to
uk.comp.vendors, uk.comp.homebuilt, sci.chem and sci.physics in a
separate posting.

So while it is asking a question, asking the question to 8 different
groups (and maybe more) seems a little enthusiatic to be totally
genuine.


--
Trooper
lid (remove the obvious)

(doesn't stop the police putting you car on the back of a lorry and taking
it away and then taking £150 to get it back)

Round my way, the police charge you 150 quid to get your car back when its
been nicked, let alone parked illegally.

Christian.

"Zak" wrote in message
...
....
SO THIS IS MY PLAN. I reckon I should now stick a A4-sized
"Please Do Not Park Here" notice on the windscreen of these
regular parkers and make sure the notice is attached with some
sort of glue that takes them a long time to remove.
....

You would then be guilty of criminal damage.

Colin Bignell

I choose not to apply for a badge, but I often have problems managing
shopping, so frequently use the disabled spaces at the supermarket. Should
I
have to spend hours trying to get my window clean for daring not to give
the
civil service even more paperwork?

No, you should bloody well apply for a badge and stop being lazy.

Christian.

On Fri, 20 May 2005 14:29:51 GMT and in uk.rec.cars.misc, Sue Begg
wrote....

In message , Alan
Gauton writes
In article .com,
says...

Surely a blue disability badge would have told him if the car owner
was
disabled?

no, it tells you if the driver has a blue badge. Many disabled do not
have those badges.

No, it tells you an occupant of the car is disabled. We don't have one
for our son because he is a) too young, and b) not disabled enough
(which is stupid given he has a physical and mental disability).

I have a friend with a son who is severely mentally and physically
disabled. This lad would carry on struggling long after others had
given
in. To get a disabled badge (or any other disability allowance) you had
to 'prove' you couldn't walk the length of the hospital corridor. You
could not say to him "Give in when it hurts - make it look bad" So he
was taken for a loooong walk around before his interview, by which time
he was too knackered to walk along the said corridor.
Possibly slightly dishonest, but not as bad as the dishonesty of some
claimants

you are actually told to describe your worst day. It's never your worst
day when they come out though.

--
sme
http://www.atbg60.dsl.pipex.com/page3.html

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Adrian wrote:

Personally, I wish people would leave their bloody kids at home when
they
go to the supermarket. It'd make *everybody's* shopping less unpleasant

I Think you will find that is often called child abuse or neglect....

In a single parent family, fair enough. But really, is it so impossible for
one parent to do the shopping while the other stays at home? Why do two
adults, and three children of various age and annoyance have to be there?
And why do the parents look at me in fury if I actually want to get past
their three year old bumbler to get at something I want to buy?

you can write on the window with a snail or slug, the slime is supposed to
leave a mark that is imposible to move. it wont hinder visibilaty but would
be bloody annoying