General Discussion
Looney Toon Peter Harry at it again
I see in today's Herald Express that regular law-breaker Peter Harry has once again cost the law-abiding taxpayers a fortune. I bet the codger is dead proud of himself.
No change here then the comments by Roy, the perfect citizen who believes that authorities who break the law are in the right and should carry on, if they did things correctly in the first place there would be no problem and no cost to the taxpayer. Is he saying, if you are innocent then you should be prosecuted for what ever reason and the authority can get away with. I bet he thinks its ok for the Politicians to rob the public purse and not be prosecuted. I also think he makes these kind of comments just to get a response, and yes it works.
Sorry Keith, but you're wrong - that codger is a serial law-breaker!
Whether that law is right or not, at the time he was blatantly and deliberately flouting it.
He's not a "motorists' champion", he's a very naughty boy.
I'm wondering how long it'll be before Viaduct is round Elm Grove Close taking photos of road that the Harry's unroadworthy and untaxed van was parked on.
Even before I read your comment I was thinking the same.
"He only does it to annoy, because he knows it teases."
Don
It's a pity Keith that you lack the intellect to conduct a debate without resorting to insults against the person you are debating with.
Though if you fail to understand other people's point of view, I realise that there's little hope of you being able to put forward your own point of view in a coherent manner.
Roys comment 'resorting to insults' and yet he thinks 'Looney Toon' is not insulting. Ah! Its ok for him to insult and also think that its ok for the authorities to break the law, and innocent people be prosecuted. he must be having a laugh.
Did Roy read the article himself or through his obvious lack of intelligence have it read to him?
I suspect the latter, because I like many others know what a complete and utter dipstick he is.
Roy still thinks the world is flat.
Seeing as I clearly stated that I was referring to insulting the person one is debating with, does that mean that you are Peter Harry??
Your lack of intellect means that you just don't get it do you? It's a pity really.
Another one who cannot debate without resorting to insults. Mind you, you're the one that's too weak to apologise to a lady, aren't you?
couldn't agree more!!! he needs locking up! and the press that give him page space need sacking!
so he beat the dvla did he? did the press mention that he kept a battered transit van in a parking bay in an area that he does not even live? what about the residents who had to put up with his wreck in front of their houses?
this man is a drain on the tax payers purse and should not be given the time of day.
Its quite incredible another person who believes that authorities do no wrong and its ok for them to waste tax payers money, and that the innocent have no right to defend themselves, it is also not a parking bay it belongs to nobody,so anybody may park there, have you seen the two mouldy caravans that have been there for approximately two years, who owns them?
The same thing has taken place in exeter with regard to parking and issuing illegal tickets, which even a DCC Councillor has brought to light and demanding that the situation is corrected and people reimbursed, so in your view he must wrong also?
FEL-699, we are a gnats whisker away from becoming (If we are not already there) a dictatorship. Would you sit back and accept an accusation leveled against you or would you go after those that accused you with the view to getting it put right? It is because of silly people like yourself and Roy (although I think Roy is more of a wind up merchant which has lost the brain he was born with and found no other) that allow these dictators to get away with what they do. As for the van, I was asked to look at it before it mysteriously vanished, with the view to getting the rust cancer removed and bringing the van back to its former glory. Whoever you are FEL-699, you do not know the difference between battered and decayed. The only damage to the van was a dent on the off-side rear which was done by another silly old fudge who claimed he did not see it, (the van that is,) How big does it have to be before it is seen? Are you in the same mould as that silly old fudge FEL-699 who can't see the wood for the trees?
Now Roy is really confused. Oh Dear! Where does he get the idea that Peter Harry is viaduct.
Peter Harry who went under the psuedo of rainbow, has not replied to this board for a very long time, and that is a fact.
Roy, Gets even more confused and outrageous, he complains if I call him a silly name, but forgets when he used to call me 'DRUG USER 4549' He also forgets that he wanted to meet me and arranged a time and place then didnt have the balls to turn up. I hope the Real Peter Harry sees what he has done, as I know Viaduct and it aint PH. Roy you get more and more pathetic. LOL
you are very confused sir! you begin to address me in your post , then ask if i am like fel699...
I AM FEL699 YOU OLD FOOL!
I never even mentioned the words describing "Harry's" van you mention. Caravans DO NOT REQUIRE A ROAD FUND LICENCE! that's the difference. No, we are not in a dictatorship, he broke the rules ( society needs guidelines) and he can't accept this, he is just acting like a big kid and I would gladly meet up with him and spank his arse! BAD LITTLE BOY!
ffl-669 Your comment 'DO NOT REQUIRE A ROAD FUND LICENCE!' neither do cars/vans etc when sorned and parked on land that nobody owns.
please don't irritate, I know the change in legislation as of 1st october 2008. You obviously missed the fact that when Mr Harry was reported, that legislation was not in place! I was addressing a previous post where someone had asked "what about the caravans left there?" I was stating that caravans do not require a road fund licence.... (i hate it when people don't read what is clear before them)
Let's be crystal on these matters:
Mr Harry parked his van in an area where he does not even live. He did not WIN a case against the DVLA, it was the DVLA who presented the case at court. They did not get a successful prosecution against Mr Harry based on TECHNICALITIES... this happens all too often all over the world... I could be prosecuted for a drink driving offence & get "off" on a technicality- My legal team and I would still know I was guilty as sin!!!!
Forget the courts for 1 minute, what about the pepole who own properties looking out on his van... do you think they were happy? WHAT ABOUT THEIR RIGHTS EH? Mr Harry does not protest against authority for the good of the people as he seems to be portrayed, he does it for his own selfish reasons! Speed Cameras/ Parking restrictions/ Unlicensed vehicles/ CCTV cameras...it's always about challenging authority. WHY for heaven's sake?
The press also need a good kick up the backside for portraying him a public hero, what a joke! He KNEW the parking restrictions and flouted the law REGARDLESS of the incovenience to the courts and the burden on the public purse! WHY waste all that energy acquiring all those parking tickets? for what? it's like a spoilt child "I am the winner, I am the winner!" serious anti social problem he has there...You question is it right to live in a dictatorship? what an ignorant comment!
If you think this country is so bad, why don't you go & live in Zimbabwe? Then you will truly know !!! what Mr Harry's actions suggest is that we should be tearing down government & living in anarchy! would you get your airshows and carnivals then? your sky tv then? your health service? (may not be the best but at least we are bloody fortunate to have one!) Who would Mr harry call if he was being burgled? Oh, yes, you will probably win that argument, as the police wouldn't be there to help, they are probably as fed up of his tantrums like the rest of us...And there my friend is the crux...the most common denominator of incovenience and injustice- The courts are tiring of him, the police are tiring of him, the department of transport are tiring of him, the public are gradually turning- Mr Harry is the 1 thing all these individual establishments are tired of, he is the common denominator, he is the thorn in the side & he is the problem.
nuff said.
your comments seem a little weak in the light of the police starting criminal proceedings regarding expense claims...
the vehicle was blight on the eyes of the residents in that area, he showed no respect for the residents there, it made the place look like a run down area and those properties are people's investments and securities. But maybe you and your close friend Mr Harry have no pride in how you choose to live. I tell you what, why don't you set
Mr Harry a challenge eh? See if he can wind the dvla up again, you know, that government agency that gets all the bad press when something goes pete tong, but no recognition for the work the do in supporting the police to identify stolen, cloned, death trap vehicles, tracking of vehicles used in crime and hit and run accidents, the intell between them and interpol, counter terrorism? A motor vehicle is a potential killing machine, they do not run on tracks, the driver can steer wherever they like ( as we learnt only too well with the suicide driver )...we mock the americans for having the right to bear arms, yet YOUR dictatorship allows you to drive a half ton plus, slab of metal around the streets. I am a motorist, I do not believe for 1 minute it is my god given right to own or drive a vehicle, yet here we are. Don't get me wrong, I am pee'd off that I have to pay over £400 a year on VED while someone with the same car as me, with a bigger petrol engine, can pay less than half (and that's an older, smokier version!) But no-one is without faults, you expect a Utopian socirty? You ain't gonna get it in this lifetime my son! It's swings & roundabouts to the grave and Mr harry and his cronies need to "start turning that frown upside down" or as I would prefer, in the words of the late great Richard Pryor: " Have a coke and a smile.............."
He has every right to challenge authority if they are wrong and acting outside the law, you should know there are no technicalites in law without the law we have anarchy.
If as you say he flouted the law, why did they cancel all the tickets? and why did the DVLA drop the case against him. Try and keep up, he had not broken any law, they are ones wasting tax payer money by not abiding by the law.
Would you, if charged with an offence and you knew you were not guilty would accept it or protest your innocence?
---------------
"The courts are tiring of him, the police are tiring of him, the department of transport are tiring of him, the public are gradually turning- Mr Harry is the 1 thing all these individual establishments are tired of, he is the common denominator, he is the thorn in the side & he is the problem"
I guess you know all the above because they have told you, if so I congratulate you for being so well connected, or are you the all seeing eye LOL
Have you seen the state of the caravans, now thats what I call an eye sore. I also have a friend who lives opposite those caravans who was also given a ticket and he is now going to get his money back. But I guess in your view he should just accept it gracefully.
Well said FEL669 - the loons on here haven't got an answer to you! As usual, they skirt around, blindly ignoring (or failing to understand) the salient points and, when challenged, conveniently forget to reply.
Well done! It sometimes feels that I'm the only voice of reason in this madhouse. You;ve made me feel less lonely tonight.
The likes of you don't know how to apologise do you? You find it alien to ever acknowledge that you've made a mistake.
It's old duffers like you who also never say "thank you" when the door is held open for them. Likewise when people move out of the way for them when they charge down the pavement in their infernal mobility scooters.
i might have to take a civil action out on you for that... sorry, thought i was someone else for a moment!
BUT HE WAS GUILTY! IT JUST WASN'T PROVEN! HE KNEW THERE WERE LINES THERE ( the parkinf fiasco).. oh, what's the point in shouting, it's falling on deaf & dumb ears anyway.
User 4549 and Viaduct really display psycopathic tendencies!
ANARCHISTS challenge authority because they do not accept it... why is there a need for you to do this? Anyone who has been wrongly done by has the right to question sure, but YOU know the alleged offences are based on an actual act contrary to legal instruction, it's the technicalities you are going for and quite frankly I cannot see how any balanced person would need to waste everybody's time...
The All Seeing Eye.
Failing to display what? he didnt have to display anything, if you a referring to the van in Elm Grove, it is not a highway and as such all he had to do was Sorn it which he did, so he was totally legal. Even the Judge agreed, unless of course you and Roy are better qualified than him, which I doubt.
User 4549 wrote: Even the Judge agreed, unless of course you and Roy are better qualified than him, which I doubt.
Yet more incorrect information!
He didn't face a judge.
Peter Harry failed to turn up at the original hearing and was duly fined £400 in his absence. The loon turned up a day late - says it all really!
Then when he appealed, the DVLA dropped the prosecution before it could go to court.
Yet more incorrect information!
Roy your really are something else, true he missed the magistrates court Newton Abbot by one day, he appealed that decision and it went to Crown Court Exeter 19th July I know because I was there, and thats when the DVLA admitted there was no case to answer, and that's when the Judge made his comment.
You seem to enjouy making it up as you go along, but it does give us all a laugh, keep it up OLD boy.
I am not sure about this but you may be able to pull up the list for that day 19th June on the Exeter Crown Court web site, there you will find his name on the list
yes i AM better qualified! on the date Mr harry was reported, legislation did not require keepers of motor vehicles to declare SORN if kept OFF PUBLIC road! trouble is, the parking bay did not fall under the act at that time... STILL NOT GOT THE POINT? WHY SHOULD HE BE ALLOWED TO DUMP A SHED OF A VEHICLE IN FRONT OF SOMEONE ELSE'S HOUSE?
NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY ON THIS MATTER, YOU ARE WRONG.
DO YOUR HOMEWORK!!!!
01/10/2008
OK?
AGAIN?
OH, ANOTHER POINT, after all the posts I have made, (and ROY), have you noticed how many people have read the posts and how many people have responded to argue against us? VIADUCT AND USER 45 49!!! NO-ONE ELSE! seems you psycopaths are in the minority....
ya know? I would love to meet up and have a more civil debate on these matters, forums can be so 2 dimensional.
Tut-tut User4549. You get caught out time and time again.
Let me provide you with a quote from the fourth estate:
Mr Harry was summoned to appear before magistrates in Newton Abbot but was fined £400 in his absence when he arrived a day late for the hearing.
He appealed against the fine and the case was sent to Exeter Crown Court, but the prosecution was dropped by the DVLA before the case was heard.
The DVLA said today: "Having reviewed the case and the information available, we decided not to prosecute."
I find it absolutely hilarious that you went to court with him (almost as hilarious as the image of Viaduct taking photos of yellow lines!!). Were you late for the first hearing too? Are you his carer? Or is he your carer? Cuckoo!
Believing FEL-699 and Roy is really laughable. I sometimes wonder what planet they are from or what drugs they have in their locker.
There is only one person who knows exactly what went on and that is Peter Harry.
Unless the two very vociferous chatter boxes can produce the evidence to back up their claims then that may well be the reason why others have only looked but not commented on this post. Because they have more sense and find no reason to gossip.
FEL-699 is a very dangerous person and if she was to fall out of her invalid buggy - I would not help her to get back in.
As for Roy - I have heard that Ali- G is coming after him for trying to knock him off his perch.
FFl-699 You are just as funny as Roy,
" yes i AM better qualified! on the date Mr harry was reported, legislation did not require keepers of motor vehicles to declare SORN if kept OFF PUBLIC road! trouble is, the parking bay did not fall under the act at that time... STILL NOT GOT THE POINT? WHY SHOULD HE BE ALLOWED TO DUMP A SHED OF A VEHICLE IN FRONT OF SOMEONE ELSE'S HOUSE?
1) your first point : It WAS sorned (Statutory Off Road Notification) try and keep up as that is the law and it was parked off road. Check legislation out on the DVLA web
You make no mention of the two caravans dumped there for over two years, both in a terrible state, but they are quite legal as the land belongs to nobody.
2)Parking Bay Marine Parade(Parked on road); has nothing to do with his van, that was something else. So you are putting two different cases together as one. I suggest you get more training in law.
Kind of blew your qualifications out of the water dont you think.
But it is good fun for the other readers of the forum to see how you muddle things up, please keep it up.
Roy
True he was late for the first hearing NA I guess the battery on mobility scooter was low!!!!!!!. On the 19th of June the batteries were fully charged for both of us, for our visit to the Crown Court Exeter to hear the Judges comments and award costs, due to the cock up by the DVLA/DCC/TDC/Police.
The Police even admitted their mistake saying re the ticket. 'it was due to the inexperience of the WPC' good one dont you think?
So now you are calling the Judge a liar, I am sure he would appreciate that.
Keep up the jokes they are really good, and keeps us all smiling which is not a bad thing.
4549 and viaduct really are senile old farts or naive young kids!
You will find that it is YOU who is actually wrong. bloody hell how stupid can 2 people be?
1) what about the caravans? are they owned by residents in that area or who own the parking area? there is no legal issue then ---CARAVANS DO NOT REQUIRE A ROAD FUND LICENCE!!!
2) When Mr Harry was reported for the transit van, the law regarding having a motor vehicle declared SORN when parked off a public road was not in force! as of 1st october 2008, the dvla were given extended powers to prosecute keepers who kept vehicles unlicensed OFF the public road. Only if the vehicle was declared SORN, would there be no offence to answer to. Again, Mr harry was not prosecuted under that section of law as it had not been brought into force!!!
3) Mr Harry's parking bay issue? I NEVER SAID THE TRANSIT WAS INVOLVED IN THAT MATTER! I am stating that he would have known that there were restrictions in that area and he chose to waste everybody's time by spitting the dummy.
Lastly, I am not a woman and I am not invalid. Such a shame that you too lily livered to say it to my face you sad old man.
yes there are plenty of people reading these posts, laughing at your chronic comments and laughing at Roy and I for wasting our time on such sad old victor meldrews ( hang on, at least meldrew had justifiable cause for his complaints)
another thing before i go and do something less sad with my life... your comments on not helping me if i were an invalid female fallen out of my carriage, just demonstrates to all the readers out there, just how psycopathic you really are!
I really cannot wait to see what Mr Harry has planned next.
You said---CARAVANS DO NOT REQUIRE A ROAD FUND LICENCE!!!
I said prior to your comment. "You make no mention of the two caravans dumped there for over two years, both in a terrible state, but they are QUITE LEGAL as the land belongs to nobody.
I also said
"1) your first point : It WAS sorned (Statutory Off Road Notification) try and keep up as that is the law and it was parked off road.
You also said
"Only if the vehicle was declared SORN, would there be no offence to answer to. Again, Mr harry was not prosecuted under that section of law as it had not been brought into force!!!
------------------------------------------------------------
How many times do I have to tell you it WAS SORNED, The problem was that the CSPO/WPC fhought that it was part of the HIGHWAY and as such they thought it should have been parked off road, WHICH IT WAS, when it was proved TO BE OFF ROAD, The DVLA realised their mistake and dropped the case.
I will meet you anytime and say it to your face, so dont call me lilylivered just say where and when.
You also said. " I am stating that he would have known that there were restrictions in that area "
He told them immediately that they had problems, and they chose to ignore him for about 7 months, so who is at fault?
This is what you also said
"yes i AM better qualified! on the date Mr harry was reported, legislation did not require keepers of motor vehicles to declare SORN if kept OFF PUBLIC road! trouble is, the parking bay did not fall under the act at that time...
Whats this about the parking bay then? The parking bay Marine Parade, the off road parking was Elm Grove Close. Two separate places and two separate vehicles.
You also said the following " the law regarding having a motor vehicle declared SORN when parked off a public road was not in force! as of 1st october 2008.
The following is pasted from the DVLA web-site, so I suppose they are wrong also and your qualifications are better than theirs? Note the date and then your date.
With the introduction of Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN) from 31st January 1998, the DVLA has removed the option to 'do nothing' from motorists to delay their payment of vehicle excise duty when they receive a vehicle licence reminder.
Richard Verge, Head of Operations at DVLA, said "The introduction of SORN will significantly reduce the opportunity for tax dodgers (known as "month skippers") to evade vehicle excise duty. Law abiding motorists need not fear the new regulations. However, motorists who avoid compliance will be targetted. By law, keepers will have to provide a SORN declaration which advises DVLA that the vehicle is neither used nor kept on a public road, and is therefore not liable to vehicle excise duty.
How many more times? the the dvla were pursuing an alleged offence for a motor vehicle unlicensed on the public highway. If a sorn was in force, the charge would have been greater, having an unlicensed on the public highway whilst a sorn was in force. he got off (ie- he did not win) on a technicality, as records could not show the status of where the vehicle was kept. Dvla did not fail in this matter, it was the local authority that were unable to provide records for this area of land.
The parking issue? Mr harry knew where he was parking had restrictions, that's the issue for me, he just could not walk away from the matter, he had to blubber like a baby.
Your "friend" is not a public hero matey.
While I would never shy away from a public meeting, I believe that calling me a feminine invalid to my face would certainly result in extreme bad feelings...
are you drunk? I have explained that already. keep taking the pills dear.
maybe you are Mr Harry after all, the reasons why all his cases are dropped is that the magistrates were mentally worn down by an incessant tirade of moronic cacophony.
you'll be telling me you fought in the wars for the likes of me next.
I give up, you are a complete and total idiot and cannot accept when you are wrong and talk a load of dribble about qualifications when you have none, you cannot even read what is posted correctly, let alone the law.
As an aside did you actually read the following post, and by the way I am not Mr Harry, you cannot even get that correct. nuff said, good for a laugh though.
You also said the following " the law regarding having a motor vehicle declared SORN when parked off a public road was not in force! as of 1st october 2008.
The following is pasted from the DVLA web-site, so I suppose they are wrong also and your qualifications are better than theirs? Note the date and then your date.
With the introduction of Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN) from 31st January 1998, the DVLA has removed the option to 'do nothing' from motorists to delay their payment of vehicle excise duty when they receive a vehicle licence reminder.
Richard Verge, Head of Operations at DVLA, said "The introduction of SORN will significantly reduce the opportunity for tax dodgers (known as "month skippers") to evade vehicle excise duty. Law abiding motorists need not fear the new regulations. However, motorists who avoid compliance will be targetted. By law, keepers will have to provide a SORN declaration which advises DVLA that the vehicle is neither used nor kept on a public road, and is therefore not liable to vehicle excise duty.
User4549,
I think that your idea of abandoning this discussion is sound. Few uncommitted (in more than one sense) people are likely to burrow this deeply into more than 50 posts.
You and I can blissfully look forward to sharing a cell in a future where we have been found guilty of something we "might have done, given half a chance, M'Lud."
.....
Sorry about the interruption. There was someone at the door serving me with an ASBO for "not being of sand mind on an internet forum." I have been binned from posting anywhere on the internet or writung or spraking for 50 years.
The persuasive nature of FEL-669's posts has made me realise that I should just accept my punishment, irrespective of the ASBO wording.
After all, I must know perfectly well what they meant to say.
Don
FEL699 you come over as a very pompous arrogant persn who can do or say nothing wrong. i wish i was as perfect as you. bitterness over all these matters will chew you up, GET A LIFE
You also posted that I called you a "feminine invalid" or something similar.
I never said that.Check my postings
It just goes to show how confused you are.
er, i think the general consensus will find if they read these posts, that i have corrected YOU on virtually every occasion ! LOL :-)
User 4549 has misinterpreted the legislation. That is all i will say, me shouting will not make anyone understand any better.
a friend of the terrible twosome, or one of them under a new username? You know nothing of me you ignoramus! Not only would i help a disabled female off the ground after falling from her carriage ( check previous posts), but i also hold doors open for strangers, male & female alike. I also disagree with nuclear armament, i hate racism, i believe my elders should be respected and until the day a police officer wallops me in the face for no reason whatsoever, i will respect their presence. Have you any idea what they have to witness or tolerate on a daily basis? As for your gay lover (sorry, couldnt help be infantile, but hey, when in Rome)- ever thought whay he was never convicted? He was in a magistrates court? Magistrates are not qualified law practitioners! they are "upstanding pillars of the community (???)", given advice by the clerk to the court...and unfortuantely on many occasions, make decisions based on their own morality wit no real knowledge of the contraventions set before them!
I wonder if Peter would be so smug if he had been before a district judge?
I have also done a lot of things I regret, i am not perfect and my MANY friends would tell you how I really am. saddo.
This what you have just said
" I
wonder if Peter would be so smug if he had been before a district judge?
How many times do you have to be told, that he did appear before a Judge 19th June 09, Exeter Crown Court.
I agree that magistrates do not fully understand the law, that is why you have Clerk to the Justices who are fully qualified lawyers and advise the magistrates.
PJD, I agree with your comments, but FEL699 is just too arrogant to accept he/she is wrong.
a very sad response. Does not offer anything to the debate. I don't really wish to carry this thread on any longer, there is no getting through to you people. By all means carry on if you wish, but leave me out of it.
I know bloody minded ignorance when I see it. There have been too many immature responses on this thread, which suggests to me that we are dealing with angst ridden juveniles questioning authority, or persons of pensionable age who no longer ( or maybe never did ) have their faculties or any idea of social or moral responsibility.
In closing, how about all posters declaring their age, then maybe all the accusations of childishness could be substantiated. I believe any inflamed comments I have made are borne of sheer frustration ...
Any inflamed comments and abuse have come from you, the truth has come from others. I will be very pleased not to see your ridiculous comments anymore. Your vendetta against PH has controlled your posts, and I think I know who you are, see you later, you can prove me wrong by ignoring me when I say hello. Bye Bye for now.
Hey Inch High Private Eye, if it helps you with your sleuthing, I know what car he drives.
Vorsprung durch Technik.
I hope I do not prove you wrong, because I would love to see the face of this total cretin. Game on.
p.s - controlled my posts? THIS THREAD IS ABOUT PETER HARRY, the Blight of Dawlish! I have intel to suggest who Viaduct is based on the info I have on Richmond Place.....LOL
do you know? they give me the right bloody hump.
:-)
claims he knows me and suggests darker things to come...
as if.
congratulations Roy, if that is your true age, I am half that (please don't let me have to explain it Via/4549...)
without wanting to sound patronising, that is a commendable age to be computer savvy ( me thinks you may have been a gadget freak most of your life!) ;-)
also, applause for the first person to stand up and be counted !
sorry, little worse for wear tonight, is this a clue for me, or a clue for the idiot?
personally, I got rid of my Audi years ago...
How has 4549 misinterpreted the law Fel-699?
And what has Peter Harry done to upset you so much?
He is the innocent party in all of this bickering and I doubt if he is bothered too much about the rantings by the silly ones on this forum
WOW, THIS THREAD GOES ON AND ON DOESN'T IT?
I just despise rotten hearts that seek glory for their own pleasure and no-one else's. You keep telling me that there was no case to answer to and time and again I reply that the law is not the issue, it was the moral obligation of the individual to constantly attack authority for no other reason than they spat the dummy ( yes , i used the term first in the thread )
jesus! here we go again! stop knocking the ball back and forwards! ok, yellow lines, we all know what they are and the varieties we get...
did a certain person park knowing full well the lines were there?
did they then pursue the matter to exhaustion?
don't you find this very sad?
personally, i see parking restrictions, first thing i think is: "right, where can i park without getting nicked?" i then seek that place out...
i don't measure the area, spend hours online checking legislation, then have a paddy in the courts!
this is what is termed as not having a life.
and yes, i do have a life, popping out round dawlish for a few sherberts, so anyone fancy playing "spot the fel" tonight? ;-)
you sad ignorant fool. That's the whole point of this thread ! Peter harry and his cronies get to give the authorities GRIEF and we are supposed to ACCEPT it? HE DOESN'T WANT TO ACCEPT SOCIETAL AUTHORITY!
SO DON'T TELL ME TO ACCEPT HIS OPINION! THIS IS A BLOODY DEMOCRACY! DO NOT TELL ME WHAT TO ACCEPT! I CHOOSE TO ACCEPT COMMUNITY AND SOCIETY! GET BACK IN YOUR WOODEN BOX.SORRY, BUT YOU FARTS GIVE ME THE RIGHT HUMP.
SHOUTING! SHOUTING! SHOUTING! GET SOME HELP! YOU NEED ASSESSING!
Putting 2 and 2 together, it looks like User4549 is saying that fel-669 is Julian Lawley - the former warden of the aviary?
Over to you fel-669.
And who is "Martin"?