In article ,
says...

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.

Then the owner of the car must be equally guilty of Criminal Damage, as
by parking in a private parking space he is causing the rightful
occupant to have to find an alternative, which he would not otherwise
have had to do.

--
AndyT.

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

wrote in message
oups.com...
David Lang wrote:

The fake notices are a good idea, but you need to reinforce them with
some
psycology.

Put up some new, bigger notices that look differenet. The inference
is that
a new company has taken over.

Beg borrow or steal a wheel clamp. I think you can hire them. Or
make a
mock one from MDF & paint it bright yellow.

Fix this to your own car with a big label on the windscreen in
yellow/black.
Leave in conspicuous position. Repeat next day with neighboors car.


Clever. But why fake it when you can do it for real?



Because you're dealing with the devil. It also ends up being a bit of a
burden on the residents and others on legitimate business.

We have a flat that we rent out - it's in a housing association run block
and isn't that far from Hounslow town centre. The car park has allocated
spaces for the residents, and it used to be unpoliced.

More and more frequently people started parking there when going shopping,
or leaving their car there and going to work for the day. So the HA
employed a clamping firm to police it - above board, completely legit
operation.

Unfortunately this now means that every resident has to have a sticker on
display in their car. They also have a limited book of vouchers for
visitors, and you can't easily get hold of more vouchers when they're used
up (they have to be filled out with the date, so it's one per day - I don't
know what would happen if a visitor stayed and slept in & the clampers came
round early in the morning). All other parking is either yellow lines or 2
hours max meters.

So, every time I have to do some work on the flat (which has sometimes taken
more than a day) I have to use up their supply of vouchers. We can't get a
permit because it's strictly one per flat.

So, it's solved the parking problem, but with quite a bit of restriction on
the resident's peaceable enjoyment of their parking space. You really don't
want to employ the services of a clamping firm unless you've carefully
thought the whole issue through and are happy with the restrictions that go
with the schemes.


--
Richard Sampson

mail me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

"Richard Colton" wrote in message
. uk...

"Stuffed" wrote in message
...

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?

Why shouldn't they? The average family probably spends considerably more
on
supermarket shopping than a single person or a childless couple. I'm
pretty
sure the supermarkets would rather have them as customers than the lower
spending singles & couples.

Surely aside from a few sweeties, an individual parent from a couple with
children would spend just as much?

Is there some sort of primitive instinct that instills a desire in those
that breed prolificly to show off the spawn of their loins to the world? Do
they take some sick pleasure in getting on everyone elses tits?

It's a weak argument to say the whole bloody family has to fill the shop
because that way the supermarkets make more money.

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?

Possibly due to your confrontational attitude?

Possibly my attitude is due to the fact I go to a shop to buy things, not as
some substitute for making the effort to have family time in a more
recreational environment? Your children are your children, not mine, and I
don't think their bicuity smell and fully formed lungs are a delight to
behold. I have small animals, I love them to bits, but I'm sure you wouldn't
appreciate their squeaks and puddles of **** in the bread section.

Did your parents never take you shopping as a child? Bear in mind, that
the
"three year old bumbler" could well be the person looking after you in
your
dotage and have a little patience (they'll need to exercise it when you're
dribbling and ranting at them in later years after all ;-))

I was dragged around shops from time to time as a small child, but not at
all often. And I hated every minute of it, same as most of the haunted
juvenile faces you see in a supermarket most evenings. I'm not trying to
eradicate children from existence, I just fail to see why their parents
parade them around shops if they have the option not to.

Don't get me wrong, badly behaved children are a pet hate of mine. I've
brought my children up to be tolerant of others, and to demonstrate good
manners - I don't see any reason why others can't do the same thing.

Nope, just don't get it. If you have nobody else available to look after
your offspring, then fair enough. But when there's two of you, buying the
same crap as you did last week, fighting to keep an eye on your kids as they
scream and fall over in front of others who actually just want to get the
shopping done and get out, I can only think there really is some obscure
mental condition that's triggered when the missus forgot to take the pill
that time.

"Brian G" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Simon Finnigan wrote:

And how did you know who was disabled and who wasnt? You sound like a
genuine plonker.

NT

If the person is genuinely then he/she will have a card saying so and will
display it - ergo, if no card is displayed then the person is not disabled
and shouldn't be in that spot.

Hate to burst your bubble, but the day your leg falls off, or organs pack
in, or any other dibillitating event happens, a little blue card doesn't
appear in a puff of smoke in your windscreen.

In article , says...


Hate to burst your bubble, but the day your leg falls off, or organs pack
in, or any other dibillitating event happens, a little blue card doesn't
appear in a puff of smoke in your windscreen.

No one suggested it did. However until the little blue card does
appear, you should not use spaces reserved for those with little blue
cards.

--
AndyT.

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

"Andy Tillbrook" wrote in message
er.co.uk...
In article , says...
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?

Yes. There is a system that covers the use of disabled spaces. Either
use both or neither.

I only ever use disabled spaces at the local large supermarket. When in
town, I either park in the free area next to the shops I use, or if that's
full, come back later. Or on a good day, park a little further out, as I
will only be picking up one or two very small items.

To get a blue badge, I would have to apply for DLA. I would almost certainly
get it too, but I manage without it, and don't want to be a further burden
on the system.

Seems bloody silly to ask the government for 50 odd quid a week just so I
can park in the disabled spot at Tesco at half ten on a Thursday evening,
maybe that's just me though?

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

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.


Toothpaste

"Andy Tillbrook" wrote in message
er.co.uk...
In article , says...


Hate to burst your bubble, but the day your leg falls off, or organs
pack
in, or any other dibillitating event happens, a little blue card doesn't
appear in a puff of smoke in your windscreen.

No one suggested it did. However until the little blue card does
appear, you should not use spaces reserved for those with little blue
cards.

I only have mild problems, and could do most of my shopping after midnight
if pushed, when the normal spaces close to the doors are always free.

However, you're saying that if someone does have some horrific disability
spring up on them, they shouldn't go shopping till the paperwork's done? I
know councils are a level of pettiness all to themselves, but I'd like to
think that supermarkets would just about comprehend that the poor legless/
neckless/ etc bugger genuinely requires that space, and not go jobsworth
crazy. Hardly in their best interests to say "I'm sorry sir, I can see
you're missing a couple of limbs, and your breathings somewhat laboured, and
that haunted look in your eyes is rather a concern, but you 'aven't got a
blue card, so you can't park there", is it?

wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 13:20:58 +0100, "DanTXD"
wrote:



Just write it on the bonnet in spray paint - that'll teach 'em

A better idea and less damage would be for them to come back every day
to four flats they would soon stop parking there !!!!!.

Nother fun thing is to jack teh car up and support it on its suspension
with an inch of space under all for whhels.

Most people don't notice the bricks if the car 'looks' right....takes em
ages to realise why it won't move.

Another good trick is a wheeled trolley jack. Jack upo teh back wheels
with and wheel the cars so all the illegals are nose to tail touching
and put yours at the back, so none of them can move.

Zak wrote:

On Fri 20 May 2005 11:05:29, Andy Dingley wrote:


What do you suggest I use for glue?

Water based. Gum or wallpaper paste based. Most of the other
glues will peel from glass, but pastes and gums are stronger
than the paper.

Use weak paper too. Make them have to scrape it off inch by
inch, not peel the sheet.



Some very good suggestions for me in this short posting.

But won't the water-based gums or wallpaper paste just DISSOLVE if
they are left to soak for a minute or so in water from the windscreen
washer?

I guess that is why they sell steam gun wallpaper strippers....

Howard Neil wrote:

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.

Blimey.

So if you are coming down the road and a car is coing toward the main
road from a side turning, you are commiting criminal damage, by forcing
him to stop, which he otherwise would not have had to do?

Adrian wrote:

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?

Because they are in a voting majority?

Zak wrote:
What to stick on his windscreen which wont come off easily?

A brick?

:0)
--
Alex

Hermes: "We can't afford that! Especially not Zoidberg!"
Zoidberg: "They took away my credit cards!"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk
www.sffh.co.uk
www.ebayfaq.co.uk

Dr Zoidberg wrote:

Zak wrote:

What to stick on his windscreen which wont come off easily?


A brick?

:0)


One of the better tricks might be to superglue a dead weasel, all four
feet, on.

I cable wrapped one to my myopic neigbours car radio aerial once. It was
still there a week later....

In message , Owain
writes
Sue Begg wrote:
From the supermarkets point of view it is in their interests to
encourage children because the parents spend a lot more.

Perhaps they could have different Days, so one could decide which
annoyances to avoid.

Monday could be Dotty Pensioner Free Day
Tuesday could be Fat People Blocking The Aisles And Talking On Mobile
Phones Free Day
Wednesday could be Children Free Day
Thursday could be Young Lovers Smooching in Low-Calorie Hot Drinks
Aisle Free Day
Friday could be People You Used To Work With And Never Want To Meet
Again Free Day
Saturday could be Indicisive People Who Take Twenty Minutes To Choose
What Type Of Value Digestive They Want To Buy And Another Twenty
Minutes To Find Their Wallet/Purse At The Checkout Free Day

Owain

LOL
You forgot the people who use the 10 items or less till and then want to
write a cheque and take longer than using a standard checkout.
Or the people who need to read the labels on every can to decide which E
numbers to eat :-)
--
Sue Begg
Remove my clothes to reply

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

Alfred Hitchcock wrote:
Is this a private car park or for residents only.

There are legal ways to do it which take time and money and there is another
way which I used before.

Go out to B&Q or Wickes and buy a can of expanding foam. Inject some into
the exhaust pipe of the ignorant parkers. They will have to have the car
towed off the car park because it wont start but willl keep cutting out.

OI! That's mine, copyright ME. You can't do that. It wouldn't be right.

Richard

--
RichardK - 1980s in a can. http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/
Retro computing - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/
Cars - 2004 Beetle Cabrio, 1989 Supra 3.0i, 1990 Sera, 1989 Volvo 740
MidiGuitar, AU/X. Apple 77-04. See links. Email - upgrade to 128

wrote in message
oups.com...
Simon Finnigan wrote:

I used to LOVE putting stickers on the cars in disabled bays when I
worked
in a supermarket. Big A4 sheets that took hours to scrape off. Then
I`d
stand by the car and wait for the owner to come out. "Who put that
on my
car????". "Me, is there a problem?". rant rant rave, threaten,
abuse.
Smile nicely and explain that since they couldn`t read the big sign
infront
of their car, we had thoughtfully decided to put one on their car to
ensure
they knew for next time. The other customers watching this used to
wet
themselves laughing!

And how did you know who was disabled and who wasnt? You sound like a
genuine plonker.

NT


You're the plonker here, Have you heard of the blue badge scheme? You get a
badge, you display it, then that entitles you to park in those type of bays.




--
--
Kind Regards
Neil B
Orange CS - +447837614753
Live Life in the Fast Lane - www.blueyonder.co.uk
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/lucy_pargeter

wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 13:20:58 +0100, "DanTXD"
wrote:



Just write it on the bonnet in spray paint - that'll teach 'em

A better idea and less damage would be for them to come back every day
to four flats they would soon stop parking there !!!!!.

A nice one for a sunny day:

Empty a jar of honey beside the driver's door. They step in it, and get
it all over the carpet, the pedals, their shoes.

It is one of the most disgusting things to have to deal with. For added
nastiness add dogcrap.

Alternatively, if the car has a fresh air ventilation grille on the
bonnet or below the windscreen, pour cream in it.

Richard

--
RichardK - 1980s in a can. http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/
Retro computing - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/
Cars - 2004 Beetle Cabrio, 1989 Supra 3.0i, 1990 Sera, 1989 Volvo 740
MidiGuitar, AU/X. Apple 77-04. See links. Email - upgrade to 128

can you park a car in front and block it in. then take time to move it when
the owner returns?



--
--
Kind Regards
Neil B
Orange CS - +447837614753
Live Life in the Fast Lane - www.blueyonder.co.uk
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/lucy_pargeter
"Zak" wrote in message
...
On Fri 20 May 2005 13:23:56, (.¿.) BORG wrote:


TROLL ALERT



At ease everyone. It's just a false alert from BORG.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
. ..
Howard Neil wrote:

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.

Blimey.

So if you are coming down the road and a car is coing toward the main road
from a side turning, you are commiting criminal damage, by forcing him to
stop, which he otherwise would not have had to do?

Are you being deliberately obtuse or did you have a very strong liquid lunch?

Any ideas as to what (relatively cheap) adhesive I can use

Your head, you stupid ******.

Repeatedly bash your tiny little bonce into his windscreen so that he
has to clean all the blood and mush off before driving away. That will
teach him.



This is slightly off-topic

It's very off topic, so take it and **** right off.



--
Lordy.UK

"Alistair J Murray" wrote in message
...
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 sewing machine (without thread) makes nice neat perforations easily.

I'm sure my sister-in-law told me she'd seen windscreen stickers that
started with a nice polite message with 'not very sticky' glue through to a
lot stronger worded message with very sticky glue.

The message t
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

We didn't. We just stated that she had one - nothing about from where
she got it or how long she'd had it or whether she deserved it. There
was nothing to prevent us just imagining the first one.

You think there isn't a national database?

I can almost guarantee it. And even if there were we didn't provide
enough data to cross check against it. Just our new name and address.

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

The message
from Owain contains these words:

Perhaps they could have different Days, so one could decide which
annoyances to avoid.

You missed out "Parking your trolley sideways across the doors while
chatting to a friend who's done likewise and glaring at people who ask
you to move" or is that an open event?

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

In message , RichardS
writes

use woodchip. seems to be particularly resistant to any known form of
attack when it's on walls!

If necessary, I may be able to track down the former owners of my house,
and find out what combination of paper and glue was used to make the
hideous borders at the tops of the walls. It took *hours* to strip.

I may need to punch them for doing it, mind.

--
Steve Walker

In message , Richard
Colton writes

Why shouldn't they? The average family probably spends considerably more on
supermarket shopping than a single person or a childless couple.

What, buying up all the low profit loss-leaders? The child-free tend to
have more money to spend on luxury goods, with higher profit margins.

--
Steve Walker

In message , Mary
Fisher writes

"Steve Walker" wrote in message

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

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

And if you had been allowed to?

An odd question.

I'd have been given a bollocking, and the person who's property I had
damaged would have been offered an apology and, if appropriate,
recompense. Sorry if that's an old-fashioned notion, I realise that it
is no longer considered necessary to take responsibility for the
behaviour of one's children .

Last time it happened to me the woman in charge of the kids neither
apologised nor pointed out to the kids that they should be more careful.

--
Steve Walker

Adrian wrote:

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

Have you considered shopping on-line or shopping later in the evening?

Or would you rather whine?

--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1, Fiat Coupe 20v Turbo
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, DS#5, COSOC# Suspended, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie ****.

You forgot the people who use the 10 items or less till and then want to
write a cheque and take longer than using a standard checkout.

That's exactly why I'll choose a checkout with one person with a £60-70
weekly shop over an "express checkout" with 10 people (each with 10 items or
less) every time.

--
Peter
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ =+=+=
your own email address at
what..a.load...of......********....dot....co.....d ot.......uk
(or ....dot......net) for just 10 quid a year.....
get circumcised to email me for more info

"Stuffed" wrote in message
...

"Richard Colton" wrote in message
. uk...

"Stuffed" wrote in message
...

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?

Why shouldn't they? The average family probably spends considerably more
on
supermarket shopping than a single person or a childless couple. I'm
pretty
sure the supermarkets would rather have them as customers than the lower
spending singles & couples.

Surely aside from a few sweeties, an individual parent from a couple with
children would spend just as much?

So what? They're still generally higher spenders than single people or
childless couples. If they want to go shopping, why shouldn't they?

Is there some sort of primitive instinct that instills a desire in those
that breed prolificly to show off the spawn of their loins to the world?

Yes, it's called pride - something I'm guessing your parents didn't have in
you, hence the vitriol.

Do
they take some sick pleasure in getting on everyone elses tits?

Everyone? No,we just enjoy annoying the mental minority. ;-)

It's a weak argument to say the whole bloody family has to fill the shop
because that way the supermarkets make more money.

Excuse me, but that's not what I said. I actually said that they have just
as much right to be there as you do, and that stores will generally value
their business more highly due to their (generally) higher spend.

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?

Possibly due to your confrontational attitude?

Possibly my attitude is due to the fact I go to a shop to buy things, not
as
some substitute for making the effort to have family time in a more
recreational environment?

Right, and parents so the supermarket shopping because it's "fun". Yeah,
right.

Your children are your children, not mine,

Thank God for small mercies.

and I
don't think their bicuity smell and fully formed lungs are a delight to
behold.

Tough. They're there, get used to it.

I have small animals, I love them to bits, but I'm sure you wouldn't
appreciate their squeaks and puddles of **** in the bread section.

No, I wouldn't. Mind you, I can't remember ever seeing a human child
****ing in the bread section either, so what's your point?

Did your parents never take you shopping as a child? Bear in mind, that
the
"three year old bumbler" could well be the person looking after you in
your
dotage and have a little patience (they'll need to exercise it when
you're
dribbling and ranting at them in later years after all ;-))

I was dragged around shops from time to time as a small child, but not at
all often. And I hated every minute of it, same as most of the haunted
juvenile faces you see in a supermarket most evenings. I'm not trying to
eradicate children from existence, I just fail to see why their parents
parade them around shops if they have the option not to.

Don't get me wrong, badly behaved children are a pet hate of mine. I've
brought my children up to be tolerant of others, and to demonstrate good
manners - I don't see any reason why others can't do the same thing.

Nope, just don't get it. If you have nobody else available to look after
your offspring, then fair enough. But when there's two of you, buying the
same crap as you did last week, fighting to keep an eye on your kids as
they
scream and fall over in front of others

Again, not a problem I've ever had. My children know how to behave.

who actually just want to get the
shopping done and get out, I can only think there really is some obscure
mental condition that's triggered when the missus forgot to take the pill
that time.

You really are quite a bitter and twisted person. If parents and children
wish to go shopping together, there's no reason why they shouldn't. The
children should be kept under control, but that's simple good parenting.
I'll admit that I've seen my fair share of badly behaved kids in
supermarkets, but they are in a minority.

--
Unlock Your Phone's Potential
www.uselessinfo.org.uk
www.thephonelocker.co.uk
www.gsm-solutions.co.uk

"LordyUK" wrote in message
. ..
Any ideas as to what (relatively cheap) adhesive I can use

Your head, you stupid ******.

Repeatedly bash your tiny little bonce into his windscreen so that he
has to clean all the blood and mush off before driving away. That will
teach him.



This is slightly off-topic

It's very off topic, so take it and **** right off.



--
Lordy.UK

how about we just glue you there you turd

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
In message , Richard
Colton writes

Why shouldn't they? The average family probably spends considerably more
on
supermarket shopping than a single person or a childless couple.

What, buying up all the low profit loss-leaders?

Not many parents do that. It's generally the students that have that area
sewn up (and what's the betting that this will cause an outburst about
students?).

The child-free tend to have more money to spend on luxury goods, with
higher profit margins.

True, and they tend to buy considerably less, levelling the playing fields
again.

--
Unlock Your Phone's Potential
www.uselessinfo.org.uk
www.thephonelocker.co.uk
www.gsm-solutions.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" ?

Any ideas as to what (relatively cheap) adhesive I can use would
be welcome.

do what i did in the same position
go out with a spanner and remove and discard their wiper arms

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Howard Neil" wrote in message
news:428ded7f$0$26089$ed2619ec@ptn-

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.


AH! I was hoping the Voice of Authority would speak :-)

I was trying *not* to say anything as it was interesting to see people's
views. However, when it became clear that the OP thought he would not be
breaking any laws, it seemed only decent to warn him. If he wishes to
still proceed, at least he will do so with his eyes open.

All customers are most welcome. :-)


--
Howard Neil

barry wrote:

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

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.


Toothpaste

Are you suggesting using toothpaste to obscure the screen? If so I
don't think it would be very effective - I've used it to clean mine!
It is very easily water soluble. (FWIW I worked in the factory of
Europe's biggest manufacturer of the stuff for 36 years!)

Chris

--
Posted using XanaNews version 1.17.4.1
Remove prejudice to reply

"mindwipe" wrote in message
...

"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" ?

Any ideas as to what (relatively cheap) adhesive I can use would
be welcome.

do what i did in the same position
go out with a spanner and remove and discard their wiper arms

Criminal damage and theft, or civil trespass take a guess at who would be in
more trouble you or the driver.

"Stuffed" wrote in message
...




It's a weak argument to say the whole bloody family has to fill the shop
because that way the supermarkets make more money.

You must have very small supermarkets.


I just fail to see why their parents
parade them around shops if they have the option not to.

I doubt that anyone takes reluctant children shopping if they have the
option not to.


Nope, just don't get it. If you have nobody else available to look after
your offspring, then fair enough. But when there's two of you, buying the
same crap as you did last week,

er - how do you know? Are you keeping tabs on them?

fighting to keep an eye on your kids as they
scream and fall over in front of others who actually just want to get the
shopping done and get out, I can only think there really is some obscure
mental condition that's triggered when the missus forgot to take the pill
that time.

Or the mister was irresponsible.

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
In message , Richard
Colton writes

Why shouldn't they? The average family probably spends considerably more
on
supermarket shopping than a single person or a childless couple.

What, buying up all the low profit loss-leaders?

You've been keeping tags too.

Well, as I keep saying, everyone needs a hobby ...

"Owain" wrote in message
...
Sue Begg wrote:
From the supermarkets point of view it is in their interests to encourage
children because the parents spend a lot more.

Perhaps they could have different Days, so one could decide which
annoyances to avoid.

Monday could be Dotty Pensioner Free Day
Tuesday could be Fat People Blocking The Aisles And Talking On Mobile
Phones Free Day
Wednesday could be Children Free Day
Thursday could be Young Lovers Smooching in Low-Calorie Hot Drinks Aisle
Free Day
Friday could be People You Used To Work With And Never Want To Meet Again
Free Day
Saturday could be Indicisive People Who Take Twenty Minutes To Choose What
Type Of Value Digestive They Want To Buy And Another Twenty Minutes To
Find Their Wallet/Purse At The Checkout Free Day

Every day is a Fisher-free day. Be grateful for small mercies.

Mary

Owain

"Sue Begg" wrote in message
...


Or the people who need to read the labels on every can to decide which E
numbers to eat :-)

I read labels but don't buy cans - or anything with E numbers.

Mary