With all due respect Brooklyn Bridge, don't read the thread if it doesn't interest you.
Whatever I or anyone else says, you will disagree unless it fits the conspiracy theory that you no doubt have hidden up your sleeve, and that you're just itching to produce with a flourish and a dramatic "TA-DAAA!". This thread is therefore futile. Factual answers have been provided, you simply don't like them.
Yet more aggression from you! It's totally unnecessary - unless you have temper issues when being shown up to be wrong. I've answered your questions more than enough times for any normal person to take on board. As I've written on here already, its purpose is to ensure that the recipient of the donor's largesse doesn't break the terms of the TRO. You can't park in a chargeable parking space ...
How many times do I need to answer the "basic question"? I've answered it on numerous occasions, as you well know. It's just that you choose not read it, or that it doesn't suit your agenda. Please be assured that you won't wear me down with your aggressive posturing. So, for once and for all, the purpose for declaring a ticket is "not transferable", is bound to be to give fair warning to ...
This is getting very tedious. It says that you have to purchase a ticket from a machine or over the phone! That's all it needs to say! If you don't purchase a ticket from a machine or over the phone, then you are not meeting the terms and conditions for parking in a chargeable parking space. And therefore in breach of the TRO and therefore breaking the law. It's as simple as that. I know ...
I've answered your last question in my response on 12th September. With regards to the TRO, it doesn't explicitly state that tickets are not transferable. However it does explicitly state that when you leave your vehicle you have to purchase a ticket from a machine! It couldn't be more obvious.
Talk about being persecuted for having an opinion! Lynne, it's not an allegation, it was whimsy. I know you're big mates with pseudo-independent Ms Foden, so I guess that's why you're so defensive of her.
It's up to 121 signatures now. 1% of the Dawlish population. No wonder she's gone begging to the Gazette for publicity!
I agree, seems very straightforward.
Who's being persecuted? What a random thing to write.