Today's most viewed
Guess who won’t pay new parking fees
THEY are the council leaders who want residents to pay to park on the road outside their homes.
But a majority of them will not have to worry about paying the new charge themselves.
A Daily Echo investigation has revealed that most will avoid the new charges as they have driveways and garages to keep their own cars off the street.
The Labour and Liberal Democrat Cabinet councillors agreed the controversial plan to charge for all parking permits last week
They want residents to pay for a permit to park outside their own homes.
But even if they do cough up there is still no guarantee of a parking space. Under current rules the first parking permit is free with residents having to pay £57 if they want a secondsecond.
Now the council wants residents to pay for the first.
At the moment only residents living in certain parts of the city need a permit.
Despite agreeing the new parking policy last week the council has been unable to say which areas of the city will be affected and how much the permits will cost.
The decision has sparked an outcry among residents and has led to the Daily Echo's Parking Mad campaign demanding a U-turn in the policy.
Today the Cabinet members, who can claim allowances of more than £21,000, have been accused of"double standards" over the charging plans.
Council leader June Bridle, who uses a driveway at her Sholing bungalow, defended the policy by blaming the city's parking problems on residents who did not use their driveways.
"It's quite clear that if everybody who had them had enough common sense to park on their driveways you would have less of congestion on our streets."
She said: "We have shortage of road space and need people to use their driveways.
"I understand some people will have to pay more to park on the road. But if you're able to park on the road near to your house it's something a lot of people cannot do at the moment, particularly in areas around the hospital and city centre."
Cllr Bridle accused the Conservatives of "playing games" over the new policy which was based on a consultants' report the Conservatives received when they were in office.
Fellow Cabinet member and Liberal Democrat leader councillor Adrian Vinson said while he had off street parking at his detached Portswood house he pointed out "every area in the city has differences of one kind or another".
He said it was reasonable that administration costs for running parking zones in the city were recouped by charges and reinvested.
Councillor Jacqui Rayment (Lab) said she had a driveway for one vehicle at her semi-detached Shirley house and also used the permit zone outside as she had a number of cars in her household.
She said: "I don't think people should be penalised. I did say at cabinet that I had some problems with the parking review though I'm pleased we had a review done.
"I think we do need to have a look at parking in Southampton. My own personal view is that it will cause a number of issues and I hope that the city council will get the management of it right."
Councillor Derek Burke (Lab) said he did have some off-street parking but also used the free and paid-for permits available outside his Shirley semi.
He said: "There has always been a problem with parking in Southampton in general.
"If we could solve that problem we would be heroes because it is a very, very difficult thing.
"The report has been done and the decision has been made - whether it gets looked at again, I don't know.
"If the consultation is not right, then we go out and look at it again."
Cabinet member for transport councillor Jill Baston (Lib Dem) was unreachable for comment at her tree concealed Portswood home, which boasts a large garage and driveway.
Councillors Richard Williams (Lab), who has a large driveway outside his three-storey detached Highfield home, David Beckett (Lib Dem), who has a driveway at his Swaythling semi, and Ann Milton (Lib Dem), who has no off street parking at her Mansbridge home, were also unavailable for comment.
Councillor Peter Marsh-Jenks (Lab) said he had no off street parking and that details of the parking policy had yet to be finalised. He has not revealed where he lives.
Councillor Matt Stevens, who has also kept his address off public record, was unavailable for comment.
Tory transport spokesman councillor Gavin Dick said: "It's hypocritical for them to be asking others to pay to park outside their homes when most of them won't have to pay for it themselves.
"It's double standards."
He said residents paid enough already for their cars through various taxes and duties.
"Just taxing people is not the way forward especially if you cannot guarantee parking spaces.
"They have to change this policy. It's ill thought through.
"They should put their hands up and scrap this."
9:28am Tuesday 25th March 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Johno, Southampton on 10:29am Tue 25 Mar 08
As I understand it, Council employees have to pay to park at their workplace car parks, to the tune of £30 per month. Even those who are required to use their vehicles for work. How weird is that? Elected members, of course, do not have to pay this.
As I understand it, Council employees have to pay to park at their workplace car parks, to the tune of £30 per month. Even those who are required to use their vehicles for work. How weird is that? Elected members, of course, do not have to pay this.
Posted by: John, Romsey on 10:45am Tue 25 Mar 08
The key issue to remember at the Council Elections in May is that the Lib-Dem majority in Portswood,in 2007,was 223:the Labour majority in Sholing was 352.
Quite simply,if a few more people take the trouble to vote in these Wards it shoild be possible to bury Vinson and Bridle once and for all.The potential pleasure in that should make a walk to the local polling station worth while
John
Romsey
The key issue to remember at the Council Elections in May is that the Lib-Dem majority in Portswood,in 2007,was 223:the Labour majority in Sholing was 352.
Quite simply,if a few more people take the trouble to vote in these Wards it shoild be possible to bury Vinson and Bridle once and for all.The potential pleasure in that should make a walk to the local polling station worth while
John
Romsey
Posted by: Picked-on motorist, Southampton on 10:46am Tue 25 Mar 08
Enough is enough, it's time this Council stopped treating the motorist as an easy target for raising revenue. Perhaps we voters should ask their local councillor if he/she is in favour of this move and if it will affect them before you cast your votes for them.
Maybe the Echo might like to ask all prospective candidates what issues they stand for before any local elections. It might help to flesh out some of the news stories which are sadly lacking in actual news most days!
Enough is enough, it's time this Council stopped treating the motorist as an easy target for raising revenue. Perhaps we voters should ask their local councillor if he/she is in favour of this move and if it will affect them before you cast your votes for them.
Maybe the Echo might like to ask all prospective candidates what issues they stand for before any local elections. It might help to flesh out some of the news stories which are sadly lacking in actual news most days!
Posted by: pete, southampton on 10:48am Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote][bold]John[/bold] wrote:
The key issue to remember at the Council Elections in May is that the Lib-Dem majority in Portswood,in 2007,was 223:the Labour majority in Sholing was 352. Quite simply,if a few more people take the trouble to vote in these Wards it shoild be possible to bury Vinson and Bridle once and for all.The potential pleasure in that should make a walk to the local polling station worth while John Romsey[/quote] i thought labour lost in sholing
John wrote:
The key issue to remember at the Council Elections in May is that the Lib-Dem majority in Portswood,in 2007,was 223:the Labour majority in Sholing was 352. Quite simply,if a few more people take the trouble to vote in these Wards it shoild be possible to bury Vinson and Bridle once and for all.The potential pleasure in that should make a walk to the local polling station worth while John Romsey
i thought labour lost in sholing
Posted by: bemused onlooker, Southampton on 11:04am Tue 25 Mar 08
Why shouldn't residents pay ? They might own or rent their property but the road outside is NOT part of that property, no matter what they might think. A lot of these people even have their own sideways or garages, but they still selfishly choose to park in the road, often causing obstruction to other road users (including emergency vehicles).
If parking is permitted, it should be available to anyone not just the householders, unless of course they PAY for it.
Why shouldn't residents pay ? They might own or rent their property but the road outside is NOT part of that property, no matter what they might think. A lot of these people even have their own sideways or garages, but they still selfishly choose to park in the road, often causing obstruction to other road users (including emergency vehicles).
If parking is permitted, it should be available to anyone not just the householders, unless of course they PAY for it.
Posted by: Here, There on 11:17am Tue 25 Mar 08
Invariably the residents of these areas campaigned for residents parking and enforcement of the same, normally terraced, multiple occupancy residences with at least 2 cars per household, some in semi industrial areas, the initial campaigns were to stop the public highway being used by those business', now it has bit them in the backside and I agree they should pay for the enforcement but believe, if you want the right to park outside your own home, buy one with a driveway or drop kerb
Invariably the residents of these areas campaigned for residents parking and enforcement of the same, normally terraced, multiple occupancy residences with at least 2 cars per household, some in semi industrial areas, the initial campaigns were to stop the public highway being used by those business', now it has bit them in the backside and I agree they should pay for the enforcement but believe, if you want the right to park outside your own home, buy one with a driveway or drop kerb
Posted by: Ian, Turkey on 11:54am Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote][bold]bemused onlooker[/bold] wrote:
Why shouldn't residents pay ? They might own or rent their property but the road outside is NOT part of that property, no matter what they might think. A lot of these people even have their own sideways or garages, but they still selfishly choose to park in the road, often causing obstruction to other road users (including emergency vehicles). If parking is permitted, it should be available to anyone not just the householders, unless of course they PAY for it. [/quote] Whilst nobody has a divine right to park on ther road, as it is a thoroughfare, the roads are actually already paid for, funded, and supposedly maintained by way of tax in fuel and the tax disc.
As such, should be free to use as long as not causing a nuisance ie, obstruction the thoroughfare or other drivers.
Any further charging is only a means of increasing revenue.
bemused onlooker wrote:
Why shouldn't residents pay ? They might own or rent their property but the road outside is NOT part of that property, no matter what they might think. A lot of these people even have their own sideways or garages, but they still selfishly choose to park in the road, often causing obstruction to other road users (including emergency vehicles). If parking is permitted, it should be available to anyone not just the householders, unless of course they PAY for it.
Whilst nobody has a divine right to park on ther road, as it is a thoroughfare, the roads are actually already paid for, funded, and supposedly maintained by way of tax in fuel and the tax disc.
As such, should be free to use as long as not causing a nuisance ie, obstruction the thoroughfare or other drivers.
Any further charging is only a means of increasing revenue.
Posted by: Osama Bin Laden, A Cave far far away on 12:07pm Tue 25 Mar 08
Im gonna rob those houses later
Im gonna rob those houses later
Posted by: Poor old council employees on 12:09pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Johno[/bold] wrote:
As I understand it, Council employees have to pay to park at their workplace car parks, to the tune of £30 per month. Even those who are required to use their vehicles for work. How weird is that? Elected members, of course, do not have to pay this.[/quote] 30 quid ? I'd love to only pay around 1.50 a day to park. As it is, it costs 7.50/day in the council car parks around where I work.
Johno wrote:
As I understand it, Council employees have to pay to park at their workplace car parks, to the tune of £30 per month. Even those who are required to use their vehicles for work. How weird is that? Elected members, of course, do not have to pay this.
30 quid ? I'd love to only pay around 1.50 a day to park. As it is, it costs 7.50/day in the council car parks around where I work.
Posted by: Jimbo, Southamton on 12:14pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote][bold]pete[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]John[/bold] wrote: The key issue to remember at the Council Elections in May is that the Lib-Dem majority in Portswood,in 2007,was 223:the Labour majority in Sholing was 352. Quite simply,if a few more people take the trouble to vote in these Wards it shoild be possible to bury Vinson and Bridle once and for all.The potential pleasure in that should make a walk to the local polling station worth while John Romsey[/quote] i thought labour lost in sholing [/quote] Yes they did last year. Last time Bridle was up was 2004 when she won by a mere 84 votes - time for change this year I think!
pete wrote:
John wrote: The key issue to remember at the Council Elections in May is that the Lib-Dem majority in Portswood,in 2007,was 223:the Labour majority in Sholing was 352. Quite simply,if a few more people take the trouble to vote in these Wards it shoild be possible to bury Vinson and Bridle once and for all.The potential pleasure in that should make a walk to the local polling station worth while John Romsey
i thought labour lost in sholing
Yes they did last year. Last time Bridle was up was 2004 when she won by a mere 84 votes - time for change this year I think!
Posted by: UTS, Southampton on 12:17pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Johno[/bold] wrote:
As I understand it, Council employees have to pay to park at their workplace car parks, to the tune of £30 per month. Even those who are required to use their vehicles for work. How weird is that? Elected members, of course, do not have to pay this.[/quote] I believe the civic centre car park is planned to be turned into a park or something in the near future so no-one will be able to park there at all. Ha
Johno wrote:
As I understand it, Council employees have to pay to park at their workplace car parks, to the tune of £30 per month. Even those who are required to use their vehicles for work. How weird is that? Elected members, of course, do not have to pay this.
I believe the civic centre car park is planned to be turned into a park or something in the near future so no-one will be able to park there at all. Ha
Posted by: bemused onlooker, Southampton on 12:19pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Ian[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]bemused onlooker[/bold] wrote: Why shouldn't residents pay ? They might own or rent their property but the road outside is NOT part of that property, no matter what they might think. A lot of these people even have their own sideways or garages, but they still selfishly choose to park in the road, often causing obstruction to other road users (including emergency vehicles). If parking is permitted, it should be available to anyone not just the householders, unless of course they PAY for it. [/quote] Whilst nobody has a divine right to park on ther road, as it is a thoroughfare, the roads are actually already paid for, funded, and supposedly maintained by way of tax in fuel and the tax disc. As such, should be free to use as long as not causing a nuisance ie, obstruction the thoroughfare or other drivers. Any further charging is only a means of increasing revenue.[/quote] I agree, but if people want RESIDENTS PARKING thereby excluding other motorists, then they should PAY for it.
Ian wrote:
bemused onlooker wrote: Why shouldn't residents pay ? They might own or rent their property but the road outside is NOT part of that property, no matter what they might think. A lot of these people even have their own sideways or garages, but they still selfishly choose to park in the road, often causing obstruction to other road users (including emergency vehicles). If parking is permitted, it should be available to anyone not just the householders, unless of course they PAY for it.
Whilst nobody has a divine right to park on ther road, as it is a thoroughfare, the roads are actually already paid for, funded, and supposedly maintained by way of tax in fuel and the tax disc. As such, should be free to use as long as not causing a nuisance ie, obstruction the thoroughfare or other drivers. Any further charging is only a means of increasing revenue.
I agree, but if people want RESIDENTS PARKING thereby excluding other motorists, then they should PAY for it.
Posted by: Ian, Turkey on 12:45pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote][bold]bemused onlooker[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Ian[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]bemused onlooker[/bold] wrote: Why shouldn't residents pay ? They might own or rent their property but the road outside is NOT part of that property, no matter what they might think. A lot of these people even have their own sideways or garages, but they still selfishly choose to park in the road, often causing obstruction to other road users (including emergency vehicles). If parking is permitted, it should be available to anyone not just the householders, unless of course they PAY for it. [/quote] Whilst nobody has a divine right to park on ther road, as it is a thoroughfare, the roads are actually already paid for, funded, and supposedly maintained by way of tax in fuel and the tax disc. As such, should be free to use as long as not causing a nuisance ie, obstruction the thoroughfare or other drivers. Any further charging is only a means of increasing revenue.[/quote] I agree, but if people want RESIDENTS PARKING thereby excluding other motorists, then they should PAY for it.[/quote] I see your point, but also question as to how a council can justify excluding a person parking his(assuming totally legal) car on what is accepted as, and paid for, a public highway.
Public, by rough defination, is anybody.
If private and personal parking is required, then that should be elsewhere, and not on roads that are open to all.
bemused onlooker wrote:
Ian wrote: bemused onlooker wrote: Why shouldn't residents pay ? They might own or rent their property but the road outside is NOT part of that property, no matter what they might think. A lot of these people even have their own sideways or garages, but they still selfishly choose to park in the road, often causing obstruction to other road users (including emergency vehicles). If parking is permitted, it should be available to anyone not just the householders, unless of course they PAY for it.
Whilst nobody has a divine right to park on ther road, as it is a thoroughfare, the roads are actually already paid for, funded, and supposedly maintained by way of tax in fuel and the tax disc. As such, should be free to use as long as not causing a nuisance ie, obstruction the thoroughfare or other drivers. Any further charging is only a means of increasing revenue.
I agree, but if people want RESIDENTS PARKING thereby excluding other motorists, then they should PAY for it.
I see your point, but also question as to how a council can justify excluding a person parking his(assuming totally legal) car on what is accepted as, and paid for, a public highway.
Public, by rough defination, is anybody.
If private and personal parking is required, then that should be elsewhere, and not on roads that are open to all.
Posted by: Paramjit Bahia, Southampton on 12:48pm Tue 25 Mar 08
Cllr Bridle accused the Conservatives of "playing games" over the new policy which was based on a consultants' report the Conservatives received when they were in office.
The statement above only proves that New Labour lot have adopted Tory agenda.
If they were not going to change anything then why did they not leave Tories in office? Answer to this is could only be the greed for over £21000 which has been mentioned in the news item above.
Cllr Bridle accused the Conservatives of "playing games" over the new policy which was based on a consultants' report the Conservatives received when they were in office.
The statement above only proves that New Labour lot have adopted Tory agenda.
If they were not going to change anything then why did they not leave Tories in office? Answer to this is could only be the greed for over £21000 which has been mentioned in the news item above.
Posted by: coli, soton on 1:11pm Tue 25 Mar 08
Does this include parking on pavements and grassways?
Does this include parking on pavements and grassways?
Posted by: hmm on 1:22pm Tue 25 Mar 08
This really is a non story. Residents with drives would not have to pay either, stop trying to make it into a bigger story.
This scheme will never go ahead if people stand up for themselves
This really is a non story. Residents with drives would not have to pay either, stop trying to make it into a bigger story.
This scheme will never go ahead if people stand up for themselves
Posted by: Hugh Carres on 1:25pm Tue 25 Mar 08
Why all the fuss over a few quid ? If the Council wanted to they could add the extra to your Council Tax - would that be better ?
Permit Parkign areas are there for a reason i.e. generally there's a heavily usage during the day - such as around train stations and the University etc.. As a result of this residents can be highly inconvenienced (I recall a recent story about parking around a college in Eastleigh ?)
Where residents parking schemes have been introduced - solely for the benefit of the residents ! - there will be a significant cost to pay for wardens to police the area and for the issue of permits etc.. Why shoudl those of us who do not live in permit area have to stump up for this ?
The residents who benefit should be asked to pay, no problem !
Why all the fuss over a few quid ? If the Council wanted to they could add the extra to your Council Tax - would that be better ?
Permit Parkign areas are there for a reason i.e. generally there's a heavily usage during the day - such as around train stations and the University etc.. As a result of this residents can be highly inconvenienced (I recall a recent story about parking around a college in Eastleigh ?)
Where residents parking schemes have been introduced - solely for the benefit of the residents ! - there will be a significant cost to pay for wardens to police the area and for the issue of permits etc.. Why shoudl those of us who do not live in permit area have to stump up for this ?
The residents who benefit should be asked to pay, no problem !
Posted by: What?? on 1:25pm Tue 25 Mar 08
So the echo are having a go at councillors becuase they have garages?
Class-ist rubbish.
So the echo are having a go at councillors becuase they have garages?
Class-ist rubbish.
Posted by: Puzzled, Southampton on 1:28pm Tue 25 Mar 08
Regarding on street parking, has the Law been changed in the last 50 years. I distinctly remember that all cars parked in the road (in Southampton) during the hours of darkness had by Law to be parked in the direction of traffic flow and display a visible parking light. If a beat policemen found a car improperly parked or unlit, then a fine was the consequence, even if the car was parked under a street-lamp. Why is this now ignored and unenforced.
Regarding on street parking, has the Law been changed in the last 50 years. I distinctly remember that all cars parked in the road (in Southampton) during the hours of darkness had by Law to be parked in the direction of traffic flow and display a visible parking light. If a beat policemen found a car improperly parked or unlit, then a fine was the consequence, even if the car was parked under a street-lamp. Why is this now ignored and unenforced.
Posted by: mr.southampton, Southampton on 1:33pm Tue 25 Mar 08
Publishing photographs of councillors private homes, journalism at it's most responsible.
Publishing photographs of councillors private homes, journalism at it's most responsible.
Posted by: Rufus T Firefly on 1:35pm Tue 25 Mar 08
There's no doubt this is an interesting issue that affects many people in the catchment area of the newspaper.
But does it REALLY warrant the incredible witch-hunt campaign that the Echo has chosen to embark on?
It must have been a quiet weekend, if they could send a photographer round to take shots of councillors houses (That is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen in this newspaper).
Like I've said many times on this forum, I'm grateful that I live in such a 'quiet' area, where this is considered 'big news' by the local newspaper.
There's no doubt this is an interesting issue that affects many people in the catchment area of the newspaper.
But does it REALLY warrant the incredible witch-hunt campaign that the Echo has chosen to embark on?
It must have been a quiet weekend, if they could send a photographer round to take shots of councillors houses (That is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen in this newspaper).
Like I've said many times on this forum, I'm grateful that I live in such a 'quiet' area, where this is considered 'big news' by the local newspaper.
Posted by: Pete, Squad car 2992 on 1:35pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Puzzled[/bold] wrote:
Regarding on street parking, has the Law been changed in the last 50 years. I distinctly remember that all cars parked in the road (in Southampton) during the hours of darkness had by Law to be parked in the direction of traffic flow and display a visible parking light. If a beat policemen found a car improperly parked or unlit, then a fine was the consequence, even if the car was parked under a street-lamp. Why is this now ignored and unenforced.[/quote] ??? yes ok ???
Puzzled wrote:
Regarding on street parking, has the Law been changed in the last 50 years. I distinctly remember that all cars parked in the road (in Southampton) during the hours of darkness had by Law to be parked in the direction of traffic flow and display a visible parking light. If a beat policemen found a car improperly parked or unlit, then a fine was the consequence, even if the car was parked under a street-lamp. Why is this now ignored and unenforced.
??? yes ok ???
Posted by: Mrs. De Pointe on 1:42pm Tue 25 Mar 08
Poor Councillor Batson - having to live in an old garage. It's about time they voted themselves a pay rise.
Poor Councillor Batson - having to live in an old garage. It's about time they voted themselves a pay rise.
Posted by: parthian, Winchester on 1:44pm Tue 25 Mar 08
You sound like a councillor to me Mr firefly - fooling nobody with that Groucho Marx nickname of yours (in Duck Soup wasn't it?).
Seems a legitimate thing to do to me - a newspaper investigating the activities of elected officials. Why would anyone other than an elected official object to that?
You sound like a councillor to me Mr firefly - fooling nobody with that Groucho Marx nickname of yours (in Duck Soup wasn't it?).
Seems a legitimate thing to do to me - a newspaper investigating the activities of elected officials. Why would anyone other than an elected official object to that?
Posted by: Puzzled, Southampton on 1:49pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Pete[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Puzzled[/bold] wrote: Regarding on street parking, has the Law been changed in the last 50 years. I distinctly remember that all cars parked in the road (in Southampton) during the hours of darkness had by Law to be parked in the direction of traffic flow and display a visible parking light. If a beat policemen found a car improperly parked or unlit, then a fine was the consequence, even if the car was parked under a street-lamp. Why is this now ignored and unenforced.[/quote] ??? yes ok ???[/quote] Well, one good purge over a week would raise more revenue than increasing parking charges, and it might just encourage a few more people to park off the road.
Pete wrote:
Puzzled wrote: Regarding on street parking, has the Law been changed in the last 50 years. I distinctly remember that all cars parked in the road (in Southampton) during the hours of darkness had by Law to be parked in the direction of traffic flow and display a visible parking light. If a beat policemen found a car improperly parked or unlit, then a fine was the consequence, even if the car was parked under a street-lamp. Why is this now ignored and unenforced.
??? yes ok ???
Well, one good purge over a week would raise more revenue than increasing parking charges, and it might just encourage a few more people to park off the road.
Posted by: Jeanne, Bitterne Park on 1:56pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Puzzled[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Pete[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Puzzled[/bold] wrote: Regarding on street parking, has the Law been changed in the last 50 years. I distinctly remember that all cars parked in the road (in Southampton) during the hours of darkness had by Law to be parked in the direction of traffic flow and display a visible parking light. If a beat policemen found a car improperly parked or unlit, then a fine was the consequence, even if the car was parked under a street-lamp. Why is this now ignored and unenforced.[/quote] ??? yes ok ???[/quote] Well, one good purge over a week would raise more revenue than increasing parking charges, and it might just encourage a few more people to park off the road. [/quote] This has been a niggle with me for years, especially as I was taught to take the trouble to turn round at night so I am facing in the right direction. I also thought it was an offence to park right on the corner of a road junction and obstruct the view of traffic travelling to and fro. I have asked these community police why they can't patrol the streets and deal with these infringements, but obviously nothing is done. I was taught to drive properly, not only obeying the Highway Code, but with consideration for other road users. But no-one, it seems is taught good manners these days.
Puzzled wrote:
Pete wrote:
Puzzled wrote: Regarding on street parking, has the Law been changed in the last 50 years. I distinctly remember that all cars parked in the road (in Southampton) during the hours of darkness had by Law to be parked in the direction of traffic flow and display a visible parking light. If a beat policemen found a car improperly parked or unlit, then a fine was the consequence, even if the car was parked under a street-lamp. Why is this now ignored and unenforced.
??? yes ok ???
Well, one good purge over a week would raise more revenue than increasing parking charges, and it might just encourage a few more people to park off the road.
This has been a niggle with me for years, especially as I was taught to take the trouble to turn round at night so I am facing in the right direction. I also thought it was an offence to park right on the corner of a road junction and obstruct the view of traffic travelling to and fro. I have asked these community police why they can't patrol the streets and deal with these infringements, but obviously nothing is done. I was taught to drive properly, not only obeying the Highway Code, but with consideration for other road users. But no-one, it seems is taught good manners these days.
Posted by: Rufus T Firefly on 1:59pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote][bold]parthian[/bold] wrote:
You sound like a councillor to me Mr firefly - fooling nobody with that Groucho Marx nickname of yours (in Duck Soup wasn't it?). Seems a legitimate thing to do to me - a newspaper investigating the activities of elected officials. Why would anyone other than an elected official object to that?[/quote] Dear oh dear! Somebody got out of the wrong side of bed didn't they?
I make no attempt to fool anyone with my nickname parthian.
I think most people will have understood that I'm not [italic]really[/italic] the Groucho Marx character from Duck Soup. It's called a pseudonym, a nom de plume if you will.
But congratulations on working that one out!! Well done!! (IMDB is a fantastic source of information, isn't it?).
So, armed with the ability to see through pseudonyms, you now put it to me that I am a councillor.
How could I possibly argue with someone with your depth of intuition, parthian?
parthian wrote:
You sound like a councillor to me Mr firefly - fooling nobody with that Groucho Marx nickname of yours (in Duck Soup wasn't it?). Seems a legitimate thing to do to me - a newspaper investigating the activities of elected officials. Why would anyone other than an elected official object to that?
Dear oh dear! Somebody got out of the wrong side of bed didn't they?
I make no attempt to fool anyone with my nickname parthian.
I think most people will have understood that I'm not
really the Groucho Marx character from Duck Soup. It's called a pseudonym, a nom de plume if you will.
But congratulations on working that one out!! Well done!! (IMDB is a fantastic source of information, isn't it?).
So, armed with the ability to see through pseudonyms, you now put it to me that I am a councillor.
How could I possibly argue with someone with your depth of intuition, parthian?
Posted by: Basil, Southampton on 2:19pm Tue 25 Mar 08
"I make no attempt to fool anyone with my nickname"
A WHOPPING contradiction in terms Mr Rufus T Firefly !
"I make no attempt to fool anyone with my nickname"
A WHOPPING contradiction in terms Mr Rufus T Firefly !
Posted by: Johno, Southampton on 2:35pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote][bold]UTS[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Johno[/bold] wrote: As I understand it, Council employees have to pay to park at their workplace car parks, to the tune of £30 per month. Even those who are required to use their vehicles for work. How weird is that? Elected members, of course, do not have to pay this.[/quote] I believe the civic centre car park is planned to be turned into a park or something in the near future so no-one will be able to park there at all. Ha[/quote] Fine, I 'll use my bicycle. Then the tax collecting left will bring in some cycling congestion charge or get me to pay to park the bike in town. It's time we got rid of the looney left, lets use some of this cloning technology to create a new Margaret Thatcher. Then we'd have some sense.
UTS wrote:
Johno wrote: As I understand it, Council employees have to pay to park at their workplace car parks, to the tune of £30 per month. Even those who are required to use their vehicles for work. How weird is that? Elected members, of course, do not have to pay this.
I believe the civic centre car park is planned to be turned into a park or something in the near future so no-one will be able to park there at all. Ha
Fine, I 'll use my bicycle. Then the tax collecting left will bring in some cycling congestion charge or get me to pay to park the bike in town. It's time we got rid of the looney left, lets use some of this cloning technology to create a new Margaret Thatcher. Then we'd have some sense.
Posted by: Sue De Nimes on 2:35pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Rufus T Firefly[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]parthian[/bold] wrote:
You sound like a councillor to me Mr firefly - fooling nobody with that Groucho Marx nickname of yours (in Duck Soup wasn't it?). Seems a legitimate thing to do to me - a newspaper investigating the activities of elected officials. Why would anyone other than an elected official object to that?[/quote] Dear oh dear! Somebody got out of the wrong side of bed didn't they?
I make no attempt to fool anyone with my nickname parthian.
I think most people will have understood that I'm not [italic]really[/italic] the Groucho Marx character from Duck Soup. It's called a pseudonym, a nom de plume if you will.
But congratulations on working that one out!! Well done!! (IMDB is a fantastic source of information, isn't it?).
So, armed with the ability to see through pseudonyms, you now put it to me that I am a councillor.
How could I possibly argue with someone with your depth of intuition, parthian?[/quote] You taking the pee ?
Rufus T Firefly wrote:
parthian wrote:
You sound like a councillor to me Mr firefly - fooling nobody with that Groucho Marx nickname of yours (in Duck Soup wasn't it?). Seems a legitimate thing to do to me - a newspaper investigating the activities of elected officials. Why would anyone other than an elected official object to that?
Dear oh dear! Somebody got out of the wrong side of bed didn't they?
I make no attempt to fool anyone with my nickname parthian.
I think most people will have understood that I'm not really the Groucho Marx character from Duck Soup. It's called a pseudonym, a nom de plume if you will.
But congratulations on working that one out!! Well done!! (IMDB is a fantastic source of information, isn't it?).
So, armed with the ability to see through pseudonyms, you now put it to me that I am a councillor.
How could I possibly argue with someone with your depth of intuition, parthian?
You taking the pee ?
Posted by: Rufus T Firefly on 2:40pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Sue De Nimes[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Rufus T Firefly[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]parthian[/bold] wrote: You sound like a councillor to me Mr firefly - fooling nobody with that Groucho Marx nickname of yours (in Duck Soup wasn't it?). Seems a legitimate thing to do to me - a newspaper investigating the activities of elected officials. Why would anyone other than an elected official object to that?[/quote] Dear oh dear! Somebody got out of the wrong side of bed didn't they? I make no attempt to fool anyone with my nickname parthian. I think most people will have understood that I'm not [italic]really[/italic] the Groucho Marx character from Duck Soup. It's called a pseudonym, a nom de plume if you will. But congratulations on working that one out!! Well done!! (IMDB is a fantastic source of information, isn't it?). So, armed with the ability to see through pseudonyms, you now put it to me that I am a councillor. How could I possibly argue with someone with your depth of intuition, parthian?[/quote] You taking the pee ?[/quote] Absolutely.
Sue De Nimes wrote:
Rufus T Firefly wrote: parthian wrote: You sound like a councillor to me Mr firefly - fooling nobody with that Groucho Marx nickname of yours (in Duck Soup wasn't it?). Seems a legitimate thing to do to me - a newspaper investigating the activities of elected officials. Why would anyone other than an elected official object to that?
Dear oh dear! Somebody got out of the wrong side of bed didn't they? I make no attempt to fool anyone with my nickname parthian. I think most people will have understood that I'm not really the Groucho Marx character from Duck Soup. It's called a pseudonym, a nom de plume if you will. But congratulations on working that one out!! Well done!! (IMDB is a fantastic source of information, isn't it?). So, armed with the ability to see through pseudonyms, you now put it to me that I am a councillor. How could I possibly argue with someone with your depth of intuition, parthian?
You taking the pee ?
Absolutely.
Posted by: Daily Pot and Kettle on 2:46pm Tue 25 Mar 08
Of course all the Echo, reporters, editors and chairmen all park on the road with the rest of us.
@_((A))_@
Of course all the Echo, reporters, editors and chairmen all park on the road with the rest of us.
@_((A))_@
Posted by: Gozza, At the roadside on 2:47pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote]has the Law been changed in the last 50 years. I distinctly remember that all cars parked in the road (in Southampton) during the hours of darkness had by Law to be parked in the direction of traffic flow and display a visible parking light.[/quote] Lots of laws have been changed in the last fifty years. Vehicles are no longer required to display parking lights at night, in a built up area. In theory they have to be parked facing the right way and [italic]"close to, and parallel with, the kerb"[/italic], but the Police have better things to do than enforce this one.
has the Law been changed in the last 50 years. I distinctly remember that all cars parked in the road (in Southampton) during the hours of darkness had by Law to be parked in the direction of traffic flow and display a visible parking light.
Lots of laws have been changed in the last fifty years. Vehicles are no longer required to display parking lights at night, in a built up area. In theory they have to be parked facing the right way and
"close to, and parallel with, the kerb", but the Police have better things to do than enforce this one.
Posted by: Rufus T Firefly on 2:50pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Basil[/bold] wrote:
"I make no attempt to fool anyone with my nickname" A WHOPPING contradiction in terms Mr Rufus T Firefly ![/quote] WHOPPING you say? Well let me put it into context for you Basil.
The use of a nickname is not [italic]necessarily[/italic] an inherent attempt to deceive or fool someone. I think this is the contradiction in terms you were eluding to.
Under certain circumstances people do indeed use pseudonyms in a deceitful manner. But in the environs of a forum, where nom de plumes are commonplace and have no sinister intentions? I don't think so.
Anyway, in my case I certainly have no deceitful intent by using the pseudonym 'Rufus T Firefly (as I think I've explained already?). I just like it, sorry if that offends!
So, not a contradiction in terms (WHOPPING or otherwise).
Basil wrote:
"I make no attempt to fool anyone with my nickname" A WHOPPING contradiction in terms Mr Rufus T Firefly !
WHOPPING you say? Well let me put it into context for you Basil.
The use of a nickname is not
necessarily an inherent attempt to deceive or fool someone. I think this is the contradiction in terms you were eluding to.
Under certain circumstances people do indeed use pseudonyms in a deceitful manner. But in the environs of a forum, where nom de plumes are commonplace and have no sinister intentions? I don't think so.
Anyway, in my case I certainly have no deceitful intent by using the pseudonym 'Rufus T Firefly (as I think I've explained already?). I just like it, sorry if that offends!
So, not a contradiction in terms (WHOPPING or otherwise).
Posted by: Numpty Basher on 3:00pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote][bold]mr.southampton[/bold] wrote:
Publishing photographs of councillors private homes, journalism at it's most responsible.[/quote] The councillors full addresses are on the council's site anyway.
If they're worried perhaps they shouldn't publish their own details on the council's site.
Numpty.
mr.southampton wrote:
Publishing photographs of councillors private homes, journalism at it's most responsible.
The councillors full addresses are on the council's site anyway.
If they're worried perhaps they shouldn't publish their own details on the council's site.
Numpty.
Posted by: Rusher, winchester on 3:03pm Tue 25 Mar 08
This story is getting tedious. I really would expect much more balance from the Echo.
The road does not belong to people who live alongside it. It belongs to the public. Nobody has the right to park there for free.
Why don't you get real. People have to pay to park outside their homes in other towns - why not in Southampton.
This story is getting tedious. I really would expect much more balance from the Echo.
The road does not belong to people who live alongside it. It belongs to the public. Nobody has the right to park there for free.
Why don't you get real. People have to pay to park outside their homes in other towns - why not in Southampton.
Posted by: bemused, Southampton on 3:10pm Tue 25 Mar 08
Most people are incapable of parking in a garage hence they leave it in the road -not parallel to the pavement, blocking exits and living in a block of flats is amusing at times. Most of the drivers are simply unable to park. There are three spaces - yet the newest tenant is incapable of parking in the middle so he leaves it outside his garage thus inconveniencing everybody. If you speak to him, you experience the most foul language - I suppose it is his human right to park wherever he likes! Young people just consider no one except themselves.
Most people are incapable of parking in a garage hence they leave it in the road -not parallel to the pavement, blocking exits and living in a block of flats is amusing at times. Most of the drivers are simply unable to park. There are three spaces - yet the newest tenant is incapable of parking in the middle so he leaves it outside his garage thus inconveniencing everybody. If you speak to him, you experience the most foul language - I suppose it is his human right to park wherever he likes! Young people just consider no one except themselves.
Posted by: simon, trying to park on 4:04pm Tue 25 Mar 08
Cllr Bridle accused the Conservatives of "playing games" over the new policy which was based on a consultants' report the Conservatives received when they were in office.
[bold]but did not implement being the difference[/bold]
Cllr Bridle accused the Conservatives of "playing games" over the new policy which was based on a consultants' report the Conservatives received when they were in office.
but did not implement being the difference Posted by: George on 5:00pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Rufus T Firefly[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]parthian[/bold] wrote: You sound like a councillor to me Mr firefly - fooling nobody with that Groucho Marx nickname of yours (in Duck Soup wasn't it?). Seems a legitimate thing to do to me - a newspaper investigating the activities of elected officials. Why would anyone other than an elected official object to that?[/quote] Dear oh dear! Somebody got out of the wrong side of bed didn't they? I make no attempt to fool anyone with my nickname parthian. I think most people will have understood that I'm not [italic]really[/italic] the Groucho Marx character from Duck Soup. It's called a pseudonym, a nom de plume if you will. But congratulations on working that one out!! Well done!! (IMDB is a fantastic source of information, isn't it?). So, armed with the ability to see through pseudonyms, you now put it to me that I am a councillor. How could I possibly argue with someone with your depth of intuition, parthian?[/quote] Haven't denied it though, have you?
Rufus T Firefly wrote:
parthian wrote: You sound like a councillor to me Mr firefly - fooling nobody with that Groucho Marx nickname of yours (in Duck Soup wasn't it?). Seems a legitimate thing to do to me - a newspaper investigating the activities of elected officials. Why would anyone other than an elected official object to that?
Dear oh dear! Somebody got out of the wrong side of bed didn't they? I make no attempt to fool anyone with my nickname parthian. I think most people will have understood that I'm not really the Groucho Marx character from Duck Soup. It's called a pseudonym, a nom de plume if you will. But congratulations on working that one out!! Well done!! (IMDB is a fantastic source of information, isn't it?). So, armed with the ability to see through pseudonyms, you now put it to me that I am a councillor. How could I possibly argue with someone with your depth of intuition, parthian?
Haven't denied it though, have you?
Posted by: Irene, Southampton on 5:19pm Tue 25 Mar 08
Good grief. Has the Echo got nothing better to report than this load of tripe?
Does this mean that every time any Councillor introduces any revenue-generating idea, they have to personally contribute too?
Personally, I can't see the attraction in being a local government councillor - the kudos, income and perks are not outweighed by the unpopularity their decisions inevitably attract. But, it's a hell of a price to pay (no pun intended) that a councillor has to actually pay every time a new initiative is introduced, isn't it?
Understandably this isn't a popular idea for those affected, but come one, Echo hacks, go nothing better to report on?
Good grief. Has the Echo got nothing better to report than this load of tripe?
Does this mean that every time any Councillor introduces any revenue-generating idea, they have to personally contribute too?
Personally, I can't see the attraction in being a local government councillor - the kudos, income and perks are not outweighed by the unpopularity their decisions inevitably attract. But, it's a hell of a price to pay (no pun intended) that a councillor has to actually pay every time a new initiative is introduced, isn't it?
Understandably this isn't a popular idea for those affected, but come one, Echo hacks, go nothing better to report on?
Posted by: Hugh Carres on 5:26pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Irene[/bold] wrote:
Good grief. Has the Echo got nothing better to report than this load of tripe?
Does this mean that every time any Councillor introduces any revenue-generating idea, they have to personally contribute too?
Personally, I can't see the attraction in being a local government councillor - the kudos, income and perks are not outweighed by the unpopularity their decisions inevitably attract. But, it's a hell of a price to pay (no pun intended) that a councillor has to actually pay every time a new initiative is introduced, isn't it?
Understandably this isn't a popular idea for those affected, but come one, Echo hacks, go nothing better to report on?[/quote] Irene, it may not be popular with those who benefit from Residents Parking schemes, but those of us who do not have an exclusive right to roadside parking do not see why we should fund such schemes.
I think you'll find most people in Southampton are right behind the council on this one.
Irene wrote:
Good grief. Has the Echo got nothing better to report than this load of tripe?
Does this mean that every time any Councillor introduces any revenue-generating idea, they have to personally contribute too?
Personally, I can't see the attraction in being a local government councillor - the kudos, income and perks are not outweighed by the unpopularity their decisions inevitably attract. But, it's a hell of a price to pay (no pun intended) that a councillor has to actually pay every time a new initiative is introduced, isn't it?
Understandably this isn't a popular idea for those affected, but come one, Echo hacks, go nothing better to report on?
Irene, it may not be popular with those who benefit from Residents Parking schemes, but those of us who do not have an exclusive right to roadside parking do not see why we should fund such schemes.
I think you'll find most people in Southampton are right behind the council on this one.
Posted by: Weall Carre on 5:34pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Hugh Carres[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Irene[/bold] wrote: Good grief. Has the Echo got nothing better to report than this load of tripe? Does this mean that every time any Councillor introduces any revenue-generating idea, they have to personally contribute too? Personally, I can't see the attraction in being a local government councillor - the kudos, income and perks are not outweighed by the unpopularity their decisions inevitably attract. But, it's a hell of a price to pay (no pun intended) that a councillor has to actually pay every time a new initiative is introduced, isn't it? Understandably this isn't a popular idea for those affected, but come one, Echo hacks, go nothing better to report on?[/quote] Irene, it may not be popular with those who benefit from Residents Parking schemes, but those of us who do not have an exclusive right to roadside parking do not see why we should fund such schemes. I think you'll find most people in Southampton are right behind the council on this one. [/quote] Really?
What do you base this on?
If people have to dip into their pockets, I imagine the vast majority would be against it, unless there was a massive benefit.
Hugh Carres wrote:
Irene wrote: Good grief. Has the Echo got nothing better to report than this load of tripe? Does this mean that every time any Councillor introduces any revenue-generating idea, they have to personally contribute too? Personally, I can't see the attraction in being a local government councillor - the kudos, income and perks are not outweighed by the unpopularity their decisions inevitably attract. But, it's a hell of a price to pay (no pun intended) that a councillor has to actually pay every time a new initiative is introduced, isn't it? Understandably this isn't a popular idea for those affected, but come one, Echo hacks, go nothing better to report on?
Irene, it may not be popular with those who benefit from Residents Parking schemes, but those of us who do not have an exclusive right to roadside parking do not see why we should fund such schemes. I think you'll find most people in Southampton are right behind the council on this one.
Really?
What do you base this on?
If people have to dip into their pockets, I imagine the vast majority would be against it, unless there was a massive benefit.
Posted by: Irene, Southampton on 5:36pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Hugh Carres[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Irene[/bold] wrote: Good grief. Has the Echo got nothing better to report than this load of tripe? Does this mean that every time any Councillor introduces any revenue-generating idea, they have to personally contribute too? Personally, I can\'t see the attraction in being a local government councillor - the kudos, income and perks are not outweighed by the unpopularity their decisions inevitably attract. But, it\'s a hell of a price to pay (no pun intended) that a councillor has to actually pay every time a new initiative is introduced, isn\'t it? Understandably this isn\'t a popular idea for those affected, but come one, Echo hacks, go nothing better to report on?[/quote] Irene, it may not be popular with those who benefit from Residents Parking schemes, but those of us who do not have an exclusive right to roadside parking do not see why we should fund such schemes. I think you\'ll find most people in Southampton are right behind the council on this one. [/quote] That may well be the case. I was more confused by the Echo's line of reporting.
Why is it such a scandal to the Echo that some of the councillors who put forward this idea won't have to pay, because they have a driveway? Are the Echo suggesting that every time the council increases any cost of living, the councillors should have to pay - regardless of where they live or their age etc?
Hugh Carres wrote:
Irene wrote: Good grief. Has the Echo got nothing better to report than this load of tripe? Does this mean that every time any Councillor introduces any revenue-generating idea, they have to personally contribute too? Personally, I can\'t see the attraction in being a local government councillor - the kudos, income and perks are not outweighed by the unpopularity their decisions inevitably attract. But, it\'s a hell of a price to pay (no pun intended) that a councillor has to actually pay every time a new initiative is introduced, isn\'t it? Understandably this isn\'t a popular idea for those affected, but come one, Echo hacks, go nothing better to report on?
Irene, it may not be popular with those who benefit from Residents Parking schemes, but those of us who do not have an exclusive right to roadside parking do not see why we should fund such schemes. I think you\'ll find most people in Southampton are right behind the council on this one.
That may well be the case. I was more confused by the Echo's line of reporting.
Why is it such a scandal to the Echo that some of the councillors who put forward this idea won't have to pay, because they have a driveway? Are the Echo suggesting that every time the council increases any cost of living, the councillors should have to pay - regardless of where they live or their age etc?
Posted by: Hugh Carres on 5:44pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Weall Carre[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Hugh Carres[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Irene[/bold] wrote: Good grief. Has the Echo got nothing better to report than this load of tripe? Does this mean that every time any Councillor introduces any revenue-generating idea, they have to personally contribute too? Personally, I can't see the attraction in being a local government councillor - the kudos, income and perks are not outweighed by the unpopularity their decisions inevitably attract. But, it's a hell of a price to pay (no pun intended) that a councillor has to actually pay every time a new initiative is introduced, isn't it? Understandably this isn't a popular idea for those affected, but come one, Echo hacks, go nothing better to report on?[/quote] Irene, it may not be popular with those who benefit from Residents Parking schemes, but those of us who do not have an exclusive right to roadside parking do not see why we should fund such schemes. I think you'll find most people in Southampton are right behind the council on this one. [/quote] Really?
What do you base this on?
If people have to dip into their pockets, I imagine the vast majority would be against it, unless there was a massive benefit.[/quote] How difficult is it ? Let me explain :-
1) Most areas of Southampton do not have Residents Parking schemes. Anyone can park anywhere they wish (within the legal requirements of course) in these streets. We all pay road tax and therefore that is our entitlement.
2) As a result, Residents Parking is quasi-elitist.
3) Certain areas have petitioned the Council for Residents Parking schemes, these are generally granted in areas where daytime parking can be a 'problem', such are near the University, Colleges, Station or Hospitals etc..
4) The administration and policing cost of the, until now free, service is covered by the Council (a.k.a. you, the taxpayer).
5) No one likes to pay for something they don't need or benefit from, therefore most people (see point 1) above) are in favour of the Residents paying for their exclusive parking rights !
QED
Now, any questions at the back ?
Weall Carre wrote:
Hugh Carres wrote:
Irene wrote: Good grief. Has the Echo got nothing better to report than this load of tripe? Does this mean that every time any Councillor introduces any revenue-generating idea, they have to personally contribute too? Personally, I can't see the attraction in being a local government councillor - the kudos, income and perks are not outweighed by the unpopularity their decisions inevitably attract. But, it's a hell of a price to pay (no pun intended) that a councillor has to actually pay every time a new initiative is introduced, isn't it? Understandably this isn't a popular idea for those affected, but come one, Echo hacks, go nothing better to report on?
Irene, it may not be popular with those who benefit from Residents Parking schemes, but those of us who do not have an exclusive right to roadside parking do not see why we should fund such schemes. I think you'll find most people in Southampton are right behind the council on this one.
Really?
What do you base this on?
If people have to dip into their pockets, I imagine the vast majority would be against it, unless there was a massive benefit.
How difficult is it ? Let me explain :-
1) Most areas of Southampton do not have Residents Parking schemes. Anyone can park anywhere they wish (within the legal requirements of course) in these streets. We all pay road tax and therefore that is our entitlement.
2) As a result, Residents Parking is quasi-elitist.
3) Certain areas have petitioned the Council for Residents Parking schemes, these are generally granted in areas where daytime parking can be a 'problem', such are near the University, Colleges, Station or Hospitals etc..
4) The administration and policing cost of the, until now free, service is covered by the Council (a.k.a. you, the taxpayer).
5) No one likes to pay for something they don't need or benefit from, therefore most people (see point 1) above) are in favour of the Residents paying for their exclusive parking rights !
QED
Now, any questions at the back ?
Posted by: One major flaw on 6:18pm Tue 25 Mar 08
One flaw, Hugh - they haven't decided where these parking schemes will be. They could be across the whole city for all you know.
Are the majority of people for that?
You've just assumed you know the will of the people. We're all well aware of what assumption is the mother of...
One flaw, Hugh - they haven't decided where these parking schemes will be. They could be across the whole city for all you know.
Are the majority of people for that?
You've just assumed you know the will of the people. We're all well aware of what assumption is the mother of...
Posted by: Weall Carre on 6:23pm Tue 25 Mar 08
I think it's clear to see that 'Hugh' is for it, and has just made the leap that his opinion is the one shared by everyone.
I think it's clear to see that 'Hugh' is for it, and has just made the leap that his opinion is the one shared by everyone.
Posted by: Paramjit Bahia, Southampton on 6:44pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote][bold]simon[/bold] wrote:
Cllr Bridle accused the Conservatives of \"playing games\" over the new policy which was based on a consultants\' report the Conservatives received when they were in office. [bold]but did not implement being the difference[/bold] [/quote] [bold]Are you trying to say that EVEN the Tories had the sense to avoid this issue just before the local elections and clueless wonders of New Labour and Lib Dems could not work that out?[/bold]
I do not think Bridle and Vinson's fan club to be exactly that stupid. They just happen to be ultra arrogant rubber stamps in the hands of under worked and over paid pen pushers. They tend to forget that they are only in position of power because citizens voted for them. The voters could also remove them through the democratic process.
simon wrote:
Cllr Bridle accused the Conservatives of \"playing games\" over the new policy which was based on a consultants\' report the Conservatives received when they were in office. but did not implement being the difference
Are you trying to say that EVEN the Tories had the sense to avoid this issue just before the local elections and clueless wonders of New Labour and Lib Dems could not work that out?
I do not think Bridle and Vinson's fan club to be exactly that stupid. They just happen to be ultra arrogant rubber stamps in the hands of under worked and over paid pen pushers. They tend to forget that they are only in position of power because citizens voted for them. The voters could also remove them through the democratic process.
Posted by: Rufus T Firefly on 6:49pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Rufus T Firefly[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]parthian[/bold] wrote: You sound like a councillor to me Mr firefly - fooling nobody with that Groucho Marx nickname of yours (in Duck Soup wasn't it?). Seems a legitimate thing to do to me - a newspaper investigating the activities of elected officials. Why would anyone other than an elected official object to that?[/quote] Dear oh dear! Somebody got out of the wrong side of bed didn't they? I make no attempt to fool anyone with my nickname parthian. I think most people will have understood that I'm not [italic]really[/italic] the Groucho Marx character from Duck Soup. It's called a pseudonym, a nom de plume if you will. But congratulations on working that one out!! Well done!! (IMDB is a fantastic source of information, isn't it?). So, armed with the ability to see through pseudonyms, you now put it to me that I am a councillor. How could I possibly argue with someone with your depth of intuition, parthian?[/quote] Haven't denied it though, have you?[/quote] OOOH you're SOOO perceptive aren't you George?!?
If the extent of your intellect leads you to believe that I must be a councillor, based simply on the fact that I question the tenacity of the Echo's pursuit of the 'story', then I'm afraid you and parthian are beyond help.
From me or anyone else.
So believe what you like!!
George wrote:
Rufus T Firefly wrote: parthian wrote: You sound like a councillor to me Mr firefly - fooling nobody with that Groucho Marx nickname of yours (in Duck Soup wasn't it?). Seems a legitimate thing to do to me - a newspaper investigating the activities of elected officials. Why would anyone other than an elected official object to that?
Dear oh dear! Somebody got out of the wrong side of bed didn't they? I make no attempt to fool anyone with my nickname parthian. I think most people will have understood that I'm not really the Groucho Marx character from Duck Soup. It's called a pseudonym, a nom de plume if you will. But congratulations on working that one out!! Well done!! (IMDB is a fantastic source of information, isn't it?). So, armed with the ability to see through pseudonyms, you now put it to me that I am a councillor. How could I possibly argue with someone with your depth of intuition, parthian?
Haven't denied it though, have you?
OOOH you're SOOO perceptive aren't you George?!?
If the extent of your intellect leads you to believe that I must be a councillor, based simply on the fact that I question the tenacity of the Echo's pursuit of the 'story', then I'm afraid you and parthian are beyond help.
From me or anyone else.
So believe what you like!!
Posted by: Numpty Basher on 6:50pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Hugh Carres[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Irene[/bold] wrote: Good grief. Has the Echo got nothing better to report than this load of tripe? Does this mean that every time any Councillor introduces any revenue-generating idea, they have to personally contribute too? Personally, I can't see the attraction in being a local government councillor - the kudos, income and perks are not outweighed by the unpopularity their decisions inevitably attract. But, it's a hell of a price to pay (no pun intended) that a councillor has to actually pay every time a new initiative is introduced, isn't it? Understandably this isn't a popular idea for those affected, but come one, Echo hacks, go nothing better to report on?[/quote] Irene, it may not be popular with those who benefit from Residents Parking schemes, but those of us who do not have an exclusive right to roadside parking do not see why we should fund such schemes. I think you'll find most people in Southampton are right behind the council on this one. [/quote] The vote on the Echo's news page suggest otherwise. At the moment it's 72 per cent against...
Kinda blows your theory out of the water.
Hugh Carres wrote:
Irene wrote: Good grief. Has the Echo got nothing better to report than this load of tripe? Does this mean that every time any Councillor introduces any revenue-generating idea, they have to personally contribute too? Personally, I can't see the attraction in being a local government councillor - the kudos, income and perks are not outweighed by the unpopularity their decisions inevitably attract. But, it's a hell of a price to pay (no pun intended) that a councillor has to actually pay every time a new initiative is introduced, isn't it? Understandably this isn't a popular idea for those affected, but come one, Echo hacks, go nothing better to report on?
Irene, it may not be popular with those who benefit from Residents Parking schemes, but those of us who do not have an exclusive right to roadside parking do not see why we should fund such schemes. I think you'll find most people in Southampton are right behind the council on this one.
The vote on the Echo's news page suggest otherwise. At the moment it's 72 per cent against...
Kinda blows your theory out of the water.
Posted by: Condor Man, Southampton on 7:10pm Tue 25 Mar 08
a heady mix of champagne socialists and elitist liberals. I feel sorry in a way for some of the councillors of more modest means as it's only really the likes of Baston and Williams who 'drove' this initiative and actually live in houses that the majority of Southampton residents could afford.
I sincerely hope the put upon tax payer remembers this incident, not just in May but in 2 years time when we vote out two more labour hypocrites- both Grammar school educated but were happy to deny me that opportunity 20 years ago.
a heady mix of champagne socialists and elitist liberals. I feel sorry in a way for some of the councillors of more modest means as it's only really the likes of Baston and Williams who 'drove' this initiative and actually live in houses that the majority of Southampton residents could afford.
I sincerely hope the put upon tax payer remembers this incident, not just in May but in 2 years time when we vote out two more labour hypocrites- both Grammar school educated but were happy to deny me that opportunity 20 years ago.
Posted by: Jim, Southampton on 8:17pm Tue 25 Mar 08
Heres a solution for you, sell your car (Southampton is tiny, it doesnt need to be driven around), get yourself a lovely holiday in Spain, then take the bus and save the planet at the same time. Dont know what all the fuss is about. Whats next? Parking people who go round and check youve paid your permit?
Heres a solution for you, sell your car (Southampton is tiny, it doesnt need to be driven around), get yourself a lovely holiday in Spain, then take the bus and save the planet at the same time. Dont know what all the fuss is about. Whats next? Parking people who go round and check youve paid your permit?
Posted by: town sgt, southampton on 9:42pm Tue 25 Mar 08
As the lib dumbs and Lab circus are now plotting together when will the pay to park in reservered parking spaces in the front civic car park ? Then when they do will the staff pay to park in marlands house car park (underground) and behind the Guildhall.
And when we have the local ellections this May millton and becket will hide as they did when the people in swaythling wanted them to block the badly planned travelers site between a duel carage way and railway line MAD
As the lib dumbs and Lab circus are now plotting together when will the pay to park in reservered parking spaces in the front civic car park ? Then when they do will the staff pay to park in marlands house car park (underground) and behind the Guildhall.
And when we have the local ellections this May millton and becket will hide as they did when the people in swaythling wanted them to block the badly planned travelers site between a duel carage way and railway line MAD
Posted by: idaknow, Southampton on 9:52pm Tue 25 Mar 08
I was outraged by the small mindedness of the UK, esp Romsey! When you buy a parking ticket in the town centre you must key in your car reg no. So if you are only stopping briefly there is no chance to hand over your part used ticket to another user for the remaining time - paid for but un used!! How tight and mean spirited is this place? One of the few feel good factors was the considerate parking stranger who hands you a ticket with time - not any more!! These Councils are out to get us every which mean way they can - beware, now you know just go some place else that does value a little charity to fellow parkers!
I was outraged by the small mindedness of the UK, esp Romsey! When you buy a parking ticket in the town centre you must key in your car reg no. So if you are only stopping briefly there is no chance to hand over your part used ticket to another user for the remaining time - paid for but un used!! How tight and mean spirited is this place? One of the few feel good factors was the considerate parking stranger who hands you a ticket with time - not any more!! These Councils are out to get us every which mean way they can - beware, now you know just go some place else that does value a little charity to fellow parkers!
Posted by: Pete, Southampton on 10:11pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote][bold]idaknow[/bold] wrote:
I was outraged by the small mindedness of the UK, esp Romsey! When you buy a parking ticket in the town centre you must key in your car reg no. So if you are only stopping briefly there is no chance to hand over your part used ticket to another user for the remaining time - paid for but un used!! How tight and mean spirited is this place? One of the few feel good factors was the considerate parking stranger who hands you a ticket with time - not any more!! These Councils are out to get us every which mean way they can - beware, now you know just go some place else that does value a little charity to fellow parkers![/quote] Sorry mate, but think you're being a bit paranoid there.
If you aren't going to use the parking time, don't buy the ticket for so long.
I don't think that the council are "out to get you" - they get their money whichever system is emplyed, but the latter requires a bit of effort on your part to plan your day. Surely that's not too taxing?
idaknow wrote:
I was outraged by the small mindedness of the UK, esp Romsey! When you buy a parking ticket in the town centre you must key in your car reg no. So if you are only stopping briefly there is no chance to hand over your part used ticket to another user for the remaining time - paid for but un used!! How tight and mean spirited is this place? One of the few feel good factors was the considerate parking stranger who hands you a ticket with time - not any more!! These Councils are out to get us every which mean way they can - beware, now you know just go some place else that does value a little charity to fellow parkers!
Sorry mate, but think you're being a bit paranoid there.
If you aren't going to use the parking time, don't buy the ticket for so long.
I don't think that the council are "out to get you" - they get their money whichever system is emplyed, but the latter requires a bit of effort on your part to plan your day. Surely that's not too taxing?
Posted by: Basil, Southampton on 10:53pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Rufus T Firefly[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Basil[/bold] wrote: "I make no attempt to fool anyone with my nickname" A WHOPPING contradiction in terms Mr Rufus T Firefly ![/quote] WHOPPING you say? Well let me put it into context for you Basil. The use of a nickname is not [italic]necessarily[/italic] an inherent attempt to deceive or fool someone. I think this is the contradiction in terms you were eluding to. Under certain circumstances people do indeed use pseudonyms in a deceitful manner. But in the environs of a forum, where nom de plumes are commonplace and have no sinister intentions? I don't think so. Anyway, in my case I certainly have no deceitful intent by using the pseudonym 'Rufus T Firefly (as I think I've explained already?). I just like it, sorry if that offends! So, not a contradiction in terms (WHOPPING or otherwise).[/quote] "eluding to ??". Perhaps you meant alluding !
I think you made a definite freudian slip !
Now I come to think of it, not a "contradiction in terms" , perhaps "oxymoron" is more apt in your case !!!
Rufus T Firefly wrote:
Basil wrote: "I make no attempt to fool anyone with my nickname" A WHOPPING contradiction in terms Mr Rufus T Firefly !
WHOPPING you say? Well let me put it into context for you Basil. The use of a nickname is not necessarily an inherent attempt to deceive or fool someone. I think this is the contradiction in terms you were eluding to. Under certain circumstances people do indeed use pseudonyms in a deceitful manner. But in the environs of a forum, where nom de plumes are commonplace and have no sinister intentions? I don't think so. Anyway, in my case I certainly have no deceitful intent by using the pseudonym 'Rufus T Firefly (as I think I've explained already?). I just like it, sorry if that offends! So, not a contradiction in terms (WHOPPING or otherwise).
"eluding to ??". Perhaps you meant alluding !
I think you made a definite freudian slip !
Now I come to think of it, not a "contradiction in terms" , perhaps "oxymoron" is more apt in your case !!!
Posted by: paul on 11:57pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[bold]will not happen[/bold] [bold]
Posted by: Stephen, Shirley on 9:37am Wed 26 Mar 08
Your report says that some councillors have not revealed their home addresses. This is a matter of public record since their addresses are provided when they stand for office. A little further research by the Echo will, for example, reveal Cllr Peter Marsh-Jenks' address.
Labour has always been anti-car. Under Socialism, we'd all be walking. They are a very pedestrain party!
Your report says that some councillors have not revealed their home addresses. This is a matter of public record since their addresses are provided when they stand for office. A little further research by the Echo will, for example, reveal Cllr Peter Marsh-Jenks' address.
Labour has always been anti-car. Under Socialism, we'd all be walking. They are a very pedestrain party!
Posted by: Anon, So'ton on 9:55am Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]bemused onlooker[/bold] wrote:
Why shouldn't residents pay ? They might own or rent their property but the road outside is NOT part of that property, no matter what they might think. A lot of these people even have their own sideways or garages, but they still selfishly choose to park in the road, often causing obstruction to other road users (including emergency vehicles). If parking is permitted, it should be available to anyone not just the householders, unless of course they PAY for it. [/quote] That is just ridiculous, why should you have difficulty parking outside your own home because someone who doesn't even live there wants to park there too?
This is just another money spinning scheme thought up with no reagrd for the poor people who are going to have to find yet more money! The shame is many people in these permited areas would love to be able to get their cars off the road and park safely on a drive, but unfortunatly, many of these areas are old terraces which weren't built with parking spaces in mind.
However, I cannot understand people who would opt to park on the road when they do have a drive, the sheer matter of the car being 100% safer you'd think would be reason enough alone. But then, I think part of the problem is that people block their drive and they cannot get their cars out. I can imagine that must be so frustrating and a big deterant for parking on the drive.
If they want to make some money, charge the people more highly who park illegally and cause havoc by blocking peoples drives and making roads highly unaccesible!
bemused onlooker wrote:
Why shouldn't residents pay ? They might own or rent their property but the road outside is NOT part of that property, no matter what they might think. A lot of these people even have their own sideways or garages, but they still selfishly choose to park in the road, often causing obstruction to other road users (including emergency vehicles). If parking is permitted, it should be available to anyone not just the householders, unless of course they PAY for it.
That is just ridiculous, why should you have difficulty parking outside your own home because someone who doesn't even live there wants to park there too?
This is just another money spinning scheme thought up with no reagrd for the poor people who are going to have to find yet more money! The shame is many people in these permited areas would love to be able to get their cars off the road and park safely on a drive, but unfortunatly, many of these areas are old terraces which weren't built with parking spaces in mind.
However, I cannot understand people who would opt to park on the road when they do have a drive, the sheer matter of the car being 100% safer you'd think would be reason enough alone. But then, I think part of the problem is that people block their drive and they cannot get their cars out. I can imagine that must be so frustrating and a big deterant for parking on the drive.
If they want to make some money, charge the people more highly who park illegally and cause havoc by blocking peoples drives and making roads highly unaccesible!
Posted by: Condor Man, Southampton on 11:27am Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Stephen[/bold] wrote:
Your report says that some councillors have not revealed their home addresses. This is a matter of public record since their addresses are provided when they stand for office. A little further research by the Echo will, for example, reveal Cllr Peter Marsh-Jenks' address. Labour has always been anti-car. Under Socialism, we'd all be walking. They are a very pedestrain party![/quote] How ironic of that obese loser Marsh-Jenks to lecture others, he'll be giving his opinions on healthy eating and exercise next. Is he the secret love child of John Prescott and Claire Short?
Stephen wrote:
Your report says that some councillors have not revealed their home addresses. This is a matter of public record since their addresses are provided when they stand for office. A little further research by the Echo will, for example, reveal Cllr Peter Marsh-Jenks' address. Labour has always been anti-car. Under Socialism, we'd all be walking. They are a very pedestrain party!
How ironic of that obese loser Marsh-Jenks to lecture others, he'll be giving his opinions on healthy eating and exercise next. Is he the secret love child of John Prescott and Claire Short?
Posted by: bemuzed, shirley on 4:20pm Wed 26 Mar 08
Funny how quite possibly someone from outside of Southampton, is telling the residents of Portswood and Sholing how to vote, perhaps they should keep their noses out of Southampton issues and concentrate on Test Valley issues.
Funny how quite possibly someone from outside of Southampton, is telling the residents of Portswood and Sholing how to vote, perhaps they should keep their noses out of Southampton issues and concentrate on Test Valley issues.
Posted by: Rufus T Firefly on 6:37pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Basil[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Rufus T Firefly[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Basil[/bold] wrote: "I make no attempt to fool anyone with my nickname" A WHOPPING contradiction in terms Mr Rufus T Firefly ![/quote] WHOPPING you say? Well let me put it into context for you Basil. The use of a nickname is not [italic]necessarily[/italic] an inherent attempt to deceive or fool someone. I think this is the contradiction in terms you were eluding to. Under certain circumstances people do indeed use pseudonyms in a deceitful manner. But in the environs of a forum, where nom de plumes are commonplace and have no sinister intentions? I don't think so. Anyway, in my case I certainly have no deceitful intent by using the pseudonym 'Rufus T Firefly (as I think I've explained already?). I just like it, sorry if that offends! So, not a contradiction in terms (WHOPPING or otherwise).[/quote] "eluding to ??". Perhaps you meant alluding ! I think you made a definite freudian slip ! Now I come to think of it, not a "contradiction in terms" , perhaps "oxymoron" is more apt in your case !!! [/quote] You're amazing Basil, well done!!
You are my new literary hero, please keep up the critique of my posts.
I do appreciate you spending your valuable time pouring over my pitiful prose!!!
Basil wrote:
Rufus T Firefly wrote: Basil wrote: "I make no attempt to fool anyone with my nickname" A WHOPPING contradiction in terms Mr Rufus T Firefly !
WHOPPING you say? Well let me put it into context for you Basil. The use of a nickname is not necessarily an inherent attempt to deceive or fool someone. I think this is the contradiction in terms you were eluding to. Under certain circumstances people do indeed use pseudonyms in a deceitful manner. But in the environs of a forum, where nom de plumes are commonplace and have no sinister intentions? I don't think so. Anyway, in my case I certainly have no deceitful intent by using the pseudonym 'Rufus T Firefly (as I think I've explained already?). I just like it, sorry if that offends! So, not a contradiction in terms (WHOPPING or otherwise).
"eluding to ??". Perhaps you meant alluding ! I think you made a definite freudian slip ! Now I come to think of it, not a "contradiction in terms" , perhaps "oxymoron" is more apt in your case !!!
You're amazing Basil, well done!!
You are my new literary hero, please keep up the critique of my posts.
I do appreciate you spending your valuable time pouring over my pitiful prose!!!
Posted by: Council Worker, Totton on 5:36pm Thu 3 Apr 08
http://www.southampt
on.gov.uk/news/behin
dheadlines/residents
parkingpermits.asp#0
http://www.southampt
on.gov.uk/news/behin
dheadlines/residents
parkingpermits.asp#0
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on
