Agreed,
This selfish individual ought to consider why the two bays were empty in the first place.
If there were no enforcement, the bays would almost certainly have been full with longstayers by the time he arrived.
Furthermore, he has wasted police and court time which has to be paid for by the taxpayer.
Edit: I should add, he has wasted the bank's time which these days is also paid for by you and me. :)
Edited by ifithelps on 18/12/2008 at 07:24
|
I have little sympathy, if I get a parking ticket I pay it.
Unless they have been wrongly issued, which they never have been.
|
|
But a cheque isn't legal tender, so they don't have to accept it whatever it is written on. Lots of organisations now won't even accept bog-standard bank cheques.
|
But a cheque isn't legal tender so they don't have to accept it whatever it is written on. Lots of organisations now won't even accept bog-standard bank cheques.
Exactly
No-one has to accept a cheque in any form as payment.
|
No-one has to accept a cheque in any form as payment.
It's usually only when you pay for something in person that cheques are not accepted.
|
|
|
|
Furthermore he has wasted police and court time which has to be paid for by the taxpayer.
He was taken to court to recover a £15 processing fee. He'd paid the parking ticket. When he got to court, he was justifiably let off. It's whoever sent him there that caused the waste of everyone's time.
|
|
|
I agree with ifithelps.
This man appears to be a selfish eejit. He used up an extra parking bay unnecessarily, depriving someone else of the chance to use it, so he shouldn't be surprised he was fined. He then caused extra processing costs through his childish game of writing the cheque on bog paper, so they were quite right to either refuse the cheque or cash it and try to recover the costs.
It's a pity they couldn't have sentenced him to a week wearing a tabard saying "I'm a bad driver who writes cheques on toilet paper".
|
He used up an extra parking bay unnecessarily depriving someone else of the chance to use it so he shouldn't be surprised he was fined.
Yes, but the fact he was fined is not the issue...
He then caused extra processing costs through his childish game of writing the cheque on bog paper so they were quite right to either refuse the cheque or cash it and try to recover the costs.
Yes, but they *didn't* refuse the cheque, and then went on to waste many people's time (and your & my money) in a completely stupid court action - deserving of, IMO, a good kick up the rear end.
It's a pity they couldn't have sentenced him to a week wearing a tabard saying "I'm a bad driver who writes cheques on toilet paper".
It's a good thing that the judge ("they") did not agree with these sentiments! Mr. Roper did not have to pay the extra £15. Thank goodness for judges like this (also another, Mr. Irwin, who's very recently been in the news).
Edited by Webmaster on 19/12/2008 at 23:55
|
|
|
|
|
|
Snail, what contempt was there?
|
All better done in "Board of Inland Revenue v Haddock" by AP Herbert whihc features a negotiable cow.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negotiable_cow
|
|
|
|
