"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Norman Wells wrote

The conditions may be unreasonable. The only time they're unenforceable is if
they're entirely unconscionable. You're perfectly at liberty to contract to
whatever conditions you want to. If you park there, you're accepting the terms
and conditions displayed.

OK then. The conditions say you will be beheaded if you outstay the prescribed
times. Would that be a legal contract?

At the end the day it comes down to whether the conditions are reasonable or not.

And legal too.

They have to be legal.

But they don't have to be 'reasonable', either in your eyes or those of the court.

But he's blown both feet off completely now that he has admitted that there is no
contract if there is no consideration, and there isn't in your case.

The consideration is that you can park there provided you comply with the terms and
conditions.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
They still have to prove that you didn’t comply with the conditions.

Which might include, for example, retaining your receipt from the shop,
or producing it on demand.

If they do, the burden of proof that you used the shop shifts to you.

So you think it perfectly reasonable to expect a customer to keep a
receipt for groceries for a couple of weeks?

It depends on what the conditions displayed actually are.

If you're supposed, for example, to give your registration number to the cashier in
the store, and you neglect to do so, then it's perfectly reasonable. It's the only
proof you have.

On 12/10/15 13:34, michael adams wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 12/10/15 12:46, michael adams wrote:
"tim....." wrote in message
...

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"michael adams" wrote in message



In case it got lost in translation, the point I am arguing here is not whether Dave
is
guilty or not, but whose job it is to find the proof that he really was a customer,
in
the absences of his supplying his detains at the time.

And as it's Dave who forgot to do it at the time, it's Dave who has to do it
afterwards.


And where have I claimed anything different ?

Just checking

As I've said now more than once let them take him to Court
if they wish. As soon as he said he's paid by CC they'll
have known that if he's speaking the truth then they're
stuffed basically.

Rubbish

They have asked him to supply the details of they CC



But given that, in his view, they're already trying to
"fine" him for something he hasn't done, why should he
necessarily trust them with details of his CC ?
Not being an expert in such matters he might suspect that
once having his CC number they might interpret that as an
admission of guilt on his part and deduct the "fine".
Thus putting him to the trouble of trying to recover
the money.


Which would be an unauthorised transaction and a) would be reversed by the CC company
and b) be theft and/or fraud.

Indeed. But the customer might not necessarily be aware of that
fact; that's the point.

What's being considered here are grounds which he might reasonably
give, for not wanting to disclose his CC card details.

The fact that in not so doing he may be gravely inconveniencing the
parkco, deeply regrettable though that might be, is their problem,
not his.


I agree.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Norman Wells wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Norman Wells wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Norman Wells wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Norman Wells wrote
Harold Davis wrote

How long a period of parking are you buying for the additional "charge",
colloquially referred to as a "fine"? Is that specified on the "contract"?

When you park, you are deemed to accept the conditions on whatever notices
are displayed prominently in the car park.

Its not that black and white with unreasonable conditions.

The conditions may be unreasonable. The only time they're unenforceable is
if they're entirely unconscionable.

That is not correct.

You'll find that it is.

No I will not.

If you bother to do even some elementary searches.

Don’t need to do any search at all to know that if the
conditions say that you can only park there if you are
wearing matching sox, that that condition is unenforceable.

It would be, actually.

Nope.

Say why you think otherwise.

You made that claim, you get to do the saying.

You do not contract to hand over your first born if
you don’t actually use the store as well as the carpark.

If you park there, you're accepting the terms and conditions displayed.

Nope, you are free to park there knowing that a
particular condition is not enforceable or is illegal.

You have such a poor grasp of the principles that your 'knowing' a particular
condition is not enforceable is of very dubious provenance indeed. I wouldn't
believe you for a moment.

Doesn’t matter what you believe. What
matters is what is enforceable and legal.

And that's what I've told you. It's not a matter of 'belief' but of knowledge.

You haven't established that yours is knowledge.

Any charges displayed are legally enforceable.

Wrong.

Yes they are.

Nope, not when they don’t spell out clearly
under what circumstance the charge is due.

Which they invariably do of course.

Must explain why the courts have tossed out some claims.

Such as?

The ones they have tossed out for that reason.

Your having to invent ever more ludicrous scenarios to support your argument is
a clear indicator that you don't in fact have one.

Must explain why the court have tossed out some claims.

Such as?

The ones they have tossed out.

I can't educate pork.

Goodbye.

In article ,
Ophelia wrote:
They are free to take him to court and wear his costs when he
shows that he did use the store when he parked in their car park.

How pleased do you expect the court to be when you could have produced
your receipt for proof before it got that far?

I'd be happy to produce the receipt if they send someone here to examine
it.
What I'm not going to do is be put to any inconvenience for something
which is in no way my fault.

--
*Indian Driver - Smoke signals only*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Oh - if the parking company is going to check any receipt
provided is in fact the correct one, based on details not on
the receipt, they might as well check with no receipt at all.

They can't necessarily do that given the data privacy law.

They ask Lidl to confirm it. If that is covered by the data privacy law,
so is just when I shopped there, if ever.

Which is just my point.

You don’t have a point there.

Do you ever think before posting?

--
Small asylum seeker wanted as mud flap, must be flexible and willing to travel

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
If you're supposed, for example, to give your registration number to the
cashier in the store, and you neglect to do so, then it's perfectly
reasonable. It's the only proof you have.

Sigh.

They ask you if you have a car in the car park. If the answer is yes, only
then ask for the number, and they type it in.

I'm not 'supposed' to give my registration number at all. If it was
something you did all by yourself at some public terminal, it would have
been my 'fault' - especially since it wasn't my first visit with this
parking scheme.

But when it's something entirely initiated by the checkout person - and
the rules could easily have changed - it is up to 'them' to do the job
properly.

--
*The closest I ever got to a 4.0 in school was my blood alcohol content*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ophelia wrote:
They are free to take him to court and wear his costs when he
shows that he did use the store when he parked in their car park.

How pleased do you expect the court to be when you could have produced
your receipt for proof before it got that far?

I'd be happy to produce the receipt if they send someone here to examine
it.
What I'm not going to do is be put to any inconvenience for something
which is in no way my fault.

You would prefer to waste the court's time, Lidl's time, everyone's time, by not
sorting something out that you could do very easily?

Why? Are you always totally obstructive and unhelpful?

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:11:32 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Birds are nice creatures. The only annoying noise is the dog.

They make a very nice crunching noise when eating a parrot.

Nobody has ever stood in parrot **** by mistake.

--
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus (341- 270 BC)

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 06:13:55 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/10/2015 22:41, Rod Speed wrote:


"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:24:59 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 11/10/2015 12:30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Not for those into what happens more than anywhere else.

Things cause noise. What's wrong with some natural surroundings like
trees?

They have parrots in them round here. Nasty things which make a lot of
noise. And a particularly unpleasant one.

We get lots of Parakeets around here and they make an awful screeching
sound.

We get lots of galahs in the trees here and they make a hell of a
racket.

Not just their screeching and jabbering to each other either,
I have a big line of trees along what would otherwise be the
fence line to the park next door and when there are a hundred
or more of them in those trees as there can be at times, the
sound of them all taking off at once when I come out of the
house which has the front door on that side can be amazing.

I'd like that.

I don't mind that. Not so keen on them
all jabbering at each other for hours tho.

I fail to see people not liking birds.

You wanna try our magpies at this time of year.

Complete pain in the arse.

Agreed.

I like magpies.

--
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

I'd be happy to produce the receipt if they send someone here to examine
it.

Peep Show

If it was me I'd insist they ask for it nicely, in a lady's voice as well.

/Peep Show

(Mugging Series 3 episode 10)


What I'm not going to do is be put to any inconvenience for something
which is in no way my fault.

You would prefer to waste the court's time, Lidl's time, everyone's time,

It's Lidl's agents who are wasting everybody's time by automatically
asuming that the OP is lying.

If Lidl insisted on frisking everyone leaving their stores (not everyone
of whom will even have bought anything) on the assumption that some of
them will be shoplifters, then people would be up in arms.

So what's the difference here ?


michael adams

....

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ophelia wrote:
They are free to take him to court and wear his costs when he
shows that he did use the store when he parked in their car park.

How pleased do you expect the court to be when you could have produced
your receipt for proof before it got that far?

I'd be happy to produce the receipt if they send someone here to examine
it.
What I'm not going to do is be put to any inconvenience for something
which is in no way my fault.

One would hope they would ask to see the evidence before they went down the
court route. I think you might be blamed for not making any effort to show
it. Would you allow it to get to court?

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
If you're supposed, for example, to give your registration number to the
cashier in the store, and you neglect to do so, then it's perfectly
reasonable. It's the only proof you have.

Sigh.

They ask you if you have a car in the car park. If the answer is yes, only
then ask for the number, and they type it in.

I'm not 'supposed' to give my registration number at all.

You said in your original post that you were. You knew the system. You knew the
rules. You knew the score. It was clearly in your interest to give it to them even
if they didn't specifically request it, otherwise it was very obvious you could be
accused of parking contrary to the terms and conditions, as indeed you have been.

And now you're acting like a total dork by not simply providing a copy of your till
receipt that would settle the matter instantly.

If it was
something you did all by yourself at some public terminal, it would have
been my 'fault' - especially since it wasn't my first visit with this
parking scheme.

But when it's something entirely initiated by the checkout person - and
the rules could easily have changed - it is up to 'them' to do the job
properly.

It's never occurred to you to be even a tiny bit helpful then?

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

I'd be happy to produce the receipt if they send someone here to examine
it.

Peep Show

If it was me I'd insist they ask for it nicely, in a lady's voice as well.

/Peep Show

(Mugging Series 3 episode 10)


What I'm not going to do is be put to any inconvenience for something
which is in no way my fault.

You would prefer to waste the court's time, Lidl's time, everyone's time,

It's Lidl's agents who are wasting everybody's time by automatically
asuming that the OP is lying.

If Lidl insisted on frisking everyone leaving their stores (not everyone
of whom will even have bought anything) on the assumption that some of
them will be shoplifters, then people would be up in arms.

So what's the difference here ?

I've never had any problems with our Lidl as described here. Nobody seems
to care where you park or for how long. The only signs in their car park
are for staff parking and disabled parking.


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"michael adams" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

What I'm not going to do is be put to any inconvenience for something
which is in no way my fault.

You would prefer to waste the court's time, Lidl's time, everyone's time,

It's Lidl's agents who are wasting everybody's time by automatically
asuming that the OP is lying.

They haven't done anything of the sort. All they appear to have done is ask for
proof of purchase on the day in question, which in fact he has but for some bizarre
reason refuses to supply. He clearly prefers conflict and obstinacy, which helps
no-one.

If Lidl insisted on frisking everyone leaving their stores (not everyone
of whom will even have bought anything) on the assumption that some of
them will be shoplifters, then people would be up in arms.

So what's the difference here ?

What's the similarity?

In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
I'd be happy to produce the receipt if they send someone here to
examine it. What I'm not going to do is be put to any inconvenience
for something which is in no way my fault.

You would prefer to waste the court's time, Lidl's time, everyone's
time, by not sorting something out that you could do very easily?

Oh yes. And expect vast damages for them wasting my time too.

Why? Are you always totally obstructive and unhelpful?

With companies like this parking lot, yes.

--
*Prepositions are not words to end sentences with *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:11:32 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Birds are nice creatures. The only annoying noise is the dog.

They make a very nice crunching noise when eating a parrot.

Nobody has ever stood in parrot **** by mistake.

Do parrots **** in the woods?

--
*Rehab is for quitters.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 2015-10-12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
I'd be happy to produce the receipt if they send someone here to
examine it. What I'm not going to do is be put to any inconvenience
for something which is in no way my fault.

You would prefer to waste the court's time, Lidl's time, everyone's
time, by not sorting something out that you could do very easily?

Oh yes. And expect vast damages for them wasting my time too.

I'm afraid you'll be very disappointed on that point, even if you were
to win in court.

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:53:25 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:11:32 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Birds are nice creatures. The only annoying noise is the dog.

They make a very nice crunching noise when eating a parrot.

Nobody has ever stood in parrot **** by mistake.

Do parrots **** in the woods?

It probably washes away and stinks less than dog ****. Also the pet ones don't **** outside their owner's home.

--
How much deeper would the ocean be if sponges didn't grow in it?

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
I'd be happy to produce the receipt if they send someone here to
examine it. What I'm not going to do is be put to any inconvenience
for something which is in no way my fault.

You would prefer to waste the court's time, Lidl's time, everyone's
time, by not sorting something out that you could do very easily?

Oh yes. And expect vast damages for them wasting my time too.

Damages don't come into it. Given your behaviour in this, you won't even get your
costs either. All you're doing is causing a pointless waste of everyone's time,
including your own, to no purpose.

Why? Are you always totally obstructive and unhelpful?

With companies like this parking lot, yes.

Who have merely made a simple and straightforward request to you for information, as
one might hope, before action. And it's information you have and could easily
provide.

Bear in mind, if the parking rules weren't enforced, you might well find you
couldn't park.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"michael adams" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

What I'm not going to do is be put to any inconvenience for something
which is in no way my fault.

You would prefer to waste the court's time, Lidl's time, everyone's time,

It's Lidl's agents who are wasting everybody's time by automatically
asuming that the OP is lying.

They haven't done anything of the sort. All they appear to have done is ask for proof
of purchase on the day in question, which in fact he has but for some bizarre reason
refuses to supply. He clearly prefers conflict and obstinacy, which helps no-one.

If Lidl insisted on frisking everyone leaving their stores (not everyone
of whom will even have bought anything) on the assumption that some of
them will be shoplifters, then people would be up in arms.

So what's the difference here ?

What's the similarity?

If they're going to assume for no particular reason that
a person is dishonest - as they've done in this instance by not
accepting his word, then why aren't they insisting on the right
to frisk everyone leaving their stores ? On the assumption that
a fair proportion of them will be dishonest as well, and will
have stolen goods ?

Basically they're calling the OP a liar. And while you may be
prepared to get down on your knees and roll over every time
somebody calls you a liar, and do whatever it is they tell you
to do, to prove to them that you're not lying, not everybody is as
docile or malleable as you clearly are. Thank heavens.


michael adams

....

On 12/10/2015 15:25, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 06:13:55 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/10/2015 22:41, Rod Speed wrote:


"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:24:59 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 11/10/2015 12:30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Not for those into what happens more than anywhere else.

Things cause noise. What's wrong with some natural surroundings
like
trees?

They have parrots in them round here. Nasty things which make a
lot of
noise. And a particularly unpleasant one.

We get lots of Parakeets around here and they make an awful
screeching
sound.

We get lots of galahs in the trees here and they make a hell of a
racket.

Not just their screeching and jabbering to each other either,
I have a big line of trees along what would otherwise be the
fence line to the park next door and when there are a hundred
or more of them in those trees as there can be at times, the
sound of them all taking off at once when I come out of the
house which has the front door on that side can be amazing.

I'd like that.

I don't mind that. Not so keen on them
all jabbering at each other for hours tho.

I fail to see people not liking birds.

You wanna try our magpies at this time of year.

Complete pain in the arse.

Agreed.

I like magpies.

What do they taste like?

On 12/10/2015 15:58, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:53:25 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:11:32 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Birds are nice creatures. The only annoying noise is the dog.

They make a very nice crunching noise when eating a parrot.

Nobody has ever stood in parrot **** by mistake.

Do parrots **** in the woods?

It probably washes away and stinks less than dog ****. Also the pet
ones don't **** outside their owner's home.

Because they are prisoners and have no choice.

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:15:02 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/10/2015 15:25, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 06:13:55 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/10/2015 22:41, Rod Speed wrote:


"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:24:59 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 11/10/2015 12:30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Not for those into what happens more than anywhere else.

Things cause noise. What's wrong with some natural surroundings
like
trees?

They have parrots in them round here. Nasty things which make a
lot of
noise. And a particularly unpleasant one.

We get lots of Parakeets around here and they make an awful
screeching
sound.

We get lots of galahs in the trees here and they make a hell of a
racket.

Not just their screeching and jabbering to each other either,
I have a big line of trees along what would otherwise be the
fence line to the park next door and when there are a hundred
or more of them in those trees as there can be at times, the
sound of them all taking off at once when I come out of the
house which has the front door on that side can be amazing.

I'd like that.

I don't mind that. Not so keen on them
all jabbering at each other for hours tho.

I fail to see people not liking birds.

You wanna try our magpies at this time of year.

Complete pain in the arse.

Agreed.

I like magpies.

What do they taste like?




--
Peter is listening to Eric Clapton - Layla

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:15:02 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/10/2015 15:25, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 06:13:55 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/10/2015 22:41, Rod Speed wrote:


"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:24:59 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 11/10/2015 12:30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Not for those into what happens more than anywhere else.

Things cause noise. What's wrong with some natural surroundings
like
trees?

They have parrots in them round here. Nasty things which make a
lot of
noise. And a particularly unpleasant one.

We get lots of Parakeets around here and they make an awful
screeching
sound.

We get lots of galahs in the trees here and they make a hell of a
racket.

Not just their screeching and jabbering to each other either,
I have a big line of trees along what would otherwise be the
fence line to the park next door and when there are a hundred
or more of them in those trees as there can be at times, the
sound of them all taking off at once when I come out of the
house which has the front door on that side can be amazing.

I'd like that.

I don't mind that. Not so keen on them
all jabbering at each other for hours tho.

I fail to see people not liking birds.

You wanna try our magpies at this time of year.

Complete pain in the arse.

Agreed.

I like magpies.

What do they taste like?

Like four and twenty blackbird pies.

--
Keith was explaining to his sister how to jump start a car.
"I explained about which cables to hook up where and in what order.
She said, 'ok, I got all that, so now, which car do you start first?'"

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:17:23 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/10/2015 15:58, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:53:25 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:11:32 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Birds are nice creatures. The only annoying noise is the dog.

They make a very nice crunching noise when eating a parrot.

Nobody has ever stood in parrot **** by mistake.

Do parrots **** in the woods?

It probably washes away and stinks less than dog ****. Also the pet
ones don't **** outside their owner's home.

Because they are prisoners and have no choice.

Why do people put dogs on leads?

--
Keith was explaining to his sister how to jump start a car.
"I explained about which cables to hook up where and in what order.
She said, 'ok, I got all that, so now, which car do you start first?'"

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 00:21:19 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 22:41:35 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:24:59 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 11/10/2015 12:30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Not for those into what happens more than anywhere else.

Things cause noise. What's wrong with some natural surroundings
like
trees?

They have parrots in them round here. Nasty things which make a lot
of
noise. And a particularly unpleasant one.

We get lots of Parakeets around here and they make an awful screeching
sound.

We get lots of galahs in the trees here and they make a hell of a
racket.

Not just their screeching and jabbering to each other either,
I have a big line of trees along what would otherwise be the
fence line to the park next door and when there are a hundred
or more of them in those trees as there can be at times, the
sound of them all taking off at once when I come out of the
house which has the front door on that side can be amazing.

I'd like that.

I don't mind that. Not so keen on them
all jabbering at each other for hours tho.

Easy enough to frighten birds off.

Not these. My trees leave all the rest for
dead, that's why they all congregate there.

You put the trees there. And you could put something up the trees to scare them.

Can't legally do the same to people though.

You can actually.

How?

I fail to see people not liking birds.

You wanna try our magpies at this time of year.

Complete pain in the arse.

No birds would ever bother me.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I like birds, why would they bother me?

--
Why do you need a driver's license to buy liquor when you can't drink and drive?

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 00:01:53 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 22:07:25 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 17:37:23 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/10/2015 17:36, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 22:20:33 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 20:59:58 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 05:34:03 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 21:38:48 +0100, newshound
wrote:

On 09/10/2015 21:25, charles wrote:
In article , Tough Guy no. 1265

wrote:
On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 21:11:19 +0100, charles

wrote:

In article , Tough Guy no. 1265
wrote:
On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 16:39:24 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
charles wrote:

How do they link your car registration with your
payment
card?
Did you give them your card number in the first email?

at the branch I use, the cashier asks for your car
number
but
it
doesn't end up on the receipt - but the date & time of
purchase
does.


I don't use shops that have these parking systems.

It's actually less trouble than the close by ASDA, where
you
have
to
get and display a free ticket from a machine.

They obviously have to control parking in some way, as
it's
beside
an extremely busy station, with no car park.

Then the station should build themselves a car park. Why
did the
council approve a station with no car park?

That's rather like asking why Windsor Castle was built so
close to
Heathrow airport.

No it isn't.

Since the station waa built before the age of the motor car -
and
Town
&
Country planning did not exist - it is very similar

Yes indeed. When I was a lad (1950's) my local suburban
commuter
station
(Ewell West) had a couple of dozen car parking spaces, but it
was
seldom
more than half full. Most of those commuters who were lucky
enough to
have a car left it at home with the wife.

All these problems are solved by not living so close to each
other. I
don't have parking problems in Scotland.

But you do have a hell of a problem getting
and keeping a well paid job or even one
that you would be happy to do for free.

No more than I would in London.

Much more than you would in London in fact.

Statistics show otherwise.

Like hell they do.

Don't make me google it for you. There's a map somewhere that shows
it's the same percentage throughout the UK.

And in London you need a much better paid job as the house prices
are
stupid.

And there are far more of those there than where you are now.

Why get paid more just to pay more?

Because it beats being on benefits.

In London you couldn't live on benefits.

Many do.

Impossible, the mortgage could not be paid.

They don't have a mortgage, they rent.

And what about those who had a mortgage and a job they lost?

The mortgage company gets the house if they
didn't have mortgage insurance that covers that.

Exactly.

--
Confucius say man with hole in pocket feel cocky all day.

On 12/10/2015 16:24, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:17:23 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/10/2015 15:58, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:53:25 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:11:32 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Birds are nice creatures. The only annoying noise is the dog.

They make a very nice crunching noise when eating a parrot.

Nobody has ever stood in parrot **** by mistake.

Do parrots **** in the woods?

It probably washes away and stinks less than dog ****. Also the pet
ones don't **** outside their owner's home.

Because they are prisoners and have no choice.

Why do people put dogs on leads?

For safety reasons.

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:40:00 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/10/2015 16:24, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:17:23 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/10/2015 15:58, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:53:25 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:11:32 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Birds are nice creatures. The only annoying noise is the dog.

They make a very nice crunching noise when eating a parrot.

Nobody has ever stood in parrot **** by mistake.

Do parrots **** in the woods?

It probably washes away and stinks less than dog ****. Also the pet
ones don't **** outside their owner's home.

Because they are prisoners and have no choice.

Why do people put dogs on leads?

For safety reasons.

Sentences ending with the word "reasons" don't actually give the reason.

--
Q: Why do women close their eyes during sex?
A: Because they can't stand to see a man having a good time!

In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
They ask you if you have a car in the car park. If the answer is yes,
only then ask for the number, and they type it in.

I'm not 'supposed' to give my registration number at all.

You said in your original post that you were. You knew the system. You
knew the rules. You knew the score.

I knew what it was the last time I visited them. For all I knew at the
time they might well have changed it. It's the only store I know that uses
it.

It was clearly in your interest
to give it to them even if they didn't specifically request it,
otherwise it was very obvious you could be accused of parking contrary
to the terms and conditions, as indeed you have been.

But I didn't break any of their regulations or whatever. The checkout
person was at fault by not checking if I had a car.

And now you're acting like a total dork by not simply providing a copy
of your till receipt that would settle the matter instantly.

Good. This car park company obviously expects me to do their work for
them. And may well be thinking I don't have a receipt and will pay up.
Like so many such firms.

They took a long time to send the first letter, and a long time to reply
to emails.

If it was something you did all by yourself at some public terminal,
it would have been my 'fault' - especially since it wasn't my first
visit with this parking scheme.

But when it's something entirely initiated by the checkout person - and
the rules could easily have changed - it is up to 'them' to do the job
properly.

It's never occurred to you to be even a tiny bit helpful then?

I'd guess you'd just roll over an pay up. Your choice.

--
*Husbands should come with instructions

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
It's Lidl's agents who are wasting everybody's time by automatically
asuming that the OP is lying.

They haven't done anything of the sort. All they appear to have done is
ask for proof of purchase on the day in question, which in fact he has
but for some bizarre reason refuses to supply.

I've told them I have it. If they choose not to believe me and check up
themselves, why should I believe anything they say or do?


He clearly prefers
conflict and obstinacy, which helps

You obviously have no notion of principle.

--
*Keep honking...I'm reloading.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Do parrots **** in the woods?

It probably washes away and stinks less than dog ****. Also the pet
ones don't **** outside their owner's home.

Of course not. They are kept in a prison.

--
*The e-mail of the species is more deadly than the mail *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Why do people put dogs on leads?

For safety reasons.

Sentences ending with the word "reasons" don't actually give the reason.

It's because the law requires it on roads, etc. Don't you know anything?

--
*Frankly, scallop, I don't give a clam

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 12/10/2015 16:42, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:40:00 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/10/2015 16:24, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:17:23 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/10/2015 15:58, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:53:25 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:11:32 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Birds are nice creatures. The only annoying noise is the dog.

They make a very nice crunching noise when eating a parrot.

Nobody has ever stood in parrot **** by mistake.

Do parrots **** in the woods?

It probably washes away and stinks less than dog ****. Also the pet
ones don't **** outside their owner's home.

Because they are prisoners and have no choice.

Why do people put dogs on leads?

For safety reasons.

Sentences ending with the word "reasons" don't actually give the reason.

The reasons are obvious to anyone.

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 17:48:48 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Do parrots **** in the woods?

It probably washes away and stinks less than dog ****. Also the pet
ones don't **** outside their owner's home.

Of course not. They are kept in a prison.

They enjoy it.

--
A blonde is walking down a creek. While she's looking around she notices Judi walking along the other side of the creek. She yells to the other blonde. "Hey, how do I get to the other side?"
Judi replies, "You are on the other side!"

On 12/10/2015 17:58, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 17:48:48 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Do parrots **** in the woods?

It probably washes away and stinks less than dog ****. Also the pet
ones don't **** outside their owner's home.

Of course not. They are kept in a prison.

They enjoy it.

Squark Squark... die human die!

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 17:51:44 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Why do people put dogs on leads?

For safety reasons.

Sentences ending with the word "reasons" don't actually give the reason.

It's because the law requires it on roads, etc. Don't you know anything?

What if the dog is trained properly?

--
What do bungee jumping and sex with a prostitute have in common?
1) They both cost about $100.
2) They both last about 30 seconds.
3) In both cases, if the rubber breaks, you're a dead man.

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 17:58:20 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/10/2015 16:42, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:40:00 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/10/2015 16:24, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:17:23 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/10/2015 15:58, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:53:25 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:11:32 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Birds are nice creatures. The only annoying noise is the dog.

They make a very nice crunching noise when eating a parrot.

Nobody has ever stood in parrot **** by mistake.

Do parrots **** in the woods?

It probably washes away and stinks less than dog ****. Also the pet
ones don't **** outside their owner's home.

Because they are prisoners and have no choice.

Why do people put dogs on leads?

For safety reasons.

Sentences ending with the word "reasons" don't actually give the reason.

The reasons are obvious to anyone.

I've seen plenty dogs without leads, walking along the pavement next to a busy road.

--
A penny saved is a government oversight.

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 17:48:48 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Do parrots **** in the woods?

It probably washes away and stinks less than dog ****. Also the pet
ones don't **** outside their owner's home.

Of course not. They are kept in a prison.

They enjoy it.

No surprise the likes of you believes that.

--
*I got a job at a bakery because I kneaded dough.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.