General Discussion
I've just seen the item in the Gazette regarding this story. Well, it's clear that it's actually been a non-story. At least it's been clarified for all to see (and hopefully understand and accept).
Well quite Netiquette. This bombshell about the penalties specifically being for not displaying "Pay & Display" tickets has come from nowhere! No wonder he fell out with Peter Harry over a "misunderstanding"...
Thanks DJ. I'm really at a loss as to why User4549 is unable to read plain English. There's no attachment to the notice because parking isn't charged for. It's really that simple - there's no conspiracy I'm afraid.
User4549. You need to calm yourself down sir. The notice states that where there's a parking charge then there's an attachment. However parking isn't charged for there, therefore there's no attachment. So, parking isn't charged there and therefore tickets can't be bought or displayed. I'm sure it's not just me who can read it as it's intended to be read.
Ok point taken. But my point is that no charge is made, so that's why there's nothing attached.
Great. So now are you going to formally write to the owners of the road and ask them why they created the TRO for a private road, and why they have been enforcing said TRO? Please let us know the outcome. The gripe of your Post Script is irrelevant though, as they don't charge for on-street parking there. The key part of the wording is "Where charges are made...".
Phew! :-)
For what it's worth (not a lot probably), I 100% agree with what Margaret Swift has written re. the toilets. I feel sad though that Lynne has decided not to post on here any more, and that she's telling others to do likewise. Oh well...
Shame about the signs not relating to the fields - would have been the ideal solution for Farmer Weeks. It's unlikely that you or Wrigley would fess up to your political aspirations, so obviously you're going to say that anything to contrary is untrue. Its a shame that you won't say any more on here. But there you go.
Not about the People's Republic of Cockwood but this vote of no confidence that wasn't a vote of no confidence. Wrigley abused etiquette by slagged off Clemens and falsely accusing him of not declaring an interest. Taylor weighed in by falsely claiming that Clemens had given away confidential information about the value of Weeks' land. Prouse then laid into the pair of them over their duplicity in ...
