Southampton City Council made £28,000 by fining 1,853 drivers for not paying night parking fee

Daily Echo: Council rakes in £30,000 from ticketing drivers - in just ten weeks Council rakes in £30,000 from ticketing drivers - in just ten weeks

DRIVERS who have failed to pay a controversial new night-time parking charge have helped Southampton council bosses rake in £28,000 – in just three months, the Daily Echo can reveal.

A staggering £27,988.80 has rolled in through penalty tickets slapped on cars of those who have failed to pay the new £2 fee since it was introduced in January this year.

A total of 1,853 people have been caught out since the system was brought in amid confusion and anger from motorists who claimed ticket machines didn’t work and there was a distinct lack of signs about the changes.

The revelations have added fuel to the fire for opposition councillors who previously described the debacle as “a farce from start to finish”.

As previously reported, the new parking fee also sparked fury among business leaders in the city who feared it would deter people from visiting at night because they wouldn’t want to pay to park.

However, those concerns appear to have been allayed according to the bank balance sheets which revealed that more than £85,000 – payments of more than 42,000 drivers – has been collected from parking machines across the city in just January and February.

The staggering windfall was revealed during a full meeting of Southampton City Council yesterday afternoon.

And it sparked calls from opposition leaders for council chiefs to scrap the levy on residents living in parts of the city who are now being forced to pay to park outside their own homes.

That scheme was introduced in November last year and meant that drivers have to stump up an annual charge of £30 for first residents’ permits in 13 existing permit zones across the city – despite them previously being free.

It affected hundreds of people living in roads across Shirley, Freemantle, Woolston, Newtown, and Coxford.

The plans still went ahead amid more than 800 objections from residents.

The calls to scrap them were made by Tory leader, Cllr Royston Smith, who demanded a commitment from city transport boss Cllr Jacqui Rayment to axe the parking bills.

He said: “When you introduced the residents’ parking scheme, you said it’s because the council is stumped for cash but now you have a windfall.

“Would it not be a good thing that we could use that to do away with residents’ parking charges schemes?”

In response, she vowed to consider it but said it was not a decision she could make ”on the hop”.

Cllr Smith then asked where most of the “windfall” would be spent – and was told it would be pumped back into repairing Southampton’s damaged roads.

She said: “We all know that our networks are not in a good state across the board. There are 360 miles of road in this city and we will be investing the money into the network.

“We will have to be mindful of what we can spend the parking money on.”

Cllr Jeremy Moulton, deputy leader of the Tory group, asked if the figures were regarded as a success or failure – to which Cllr Rayment said she was “disappointed” and said the charges we not “vigorously” enforced.

Cllr Rayment later told the Daily Echo she was unable to confirm what repairs will be made using the money until a full review is carried out.

The amount raised by the council through the night-time parking charge has left a bitter taste in the mouth of some businesses which claim they have been hit by the scheme.

Ian Silsbury, from tapas restaurant La Esquina in Oxford Street, said: “If it’s not a money-making exercise why do they need to put the parking charges up? Are they giving traffic wardens a pay rise?

“To make that much in a short space of time, the money is obviously going somewhere.”

Comments (84)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:36am Thu 20 Mar 14

From the sidelines says...

Dear Southampton,

I'd like you to know that I have contributed in my on small way to your city coffers, helping you in the midst of your labour mis-management.

I was in a hurry, you might say, "cash-rich, time-poor".

You're welcome.

From the sidelines.
Dear Southampton, I'd like you to know that I have contributed in my on small way to your city coffers, helping you in the midst of your labour mis-management. I was in a hurry, you might say, "cash-rich, time-poor". You're welcome. From the sidelines. From the sidelines
  • Score: -2

8:38am Thu 20 Mar 14

KSO16R says...

Read the signs don't pay the fines . . . . Simple !
Read the signs don't pay the fines . . . . Simple ! KSO16R
  • Score: -7

8:50am Thu 20 Mar 14

bigfella777 says...

Just goes to show what a fiasco it is. This isn't people dodging tickets, this is a poorly thought through, disorganised , sneaky scheme which is catching motorists unaware.
I can definitely say that I have seen the 2 car parks next to my flat go from nearly full most nights to now being almost empty.
The fact that the wardens turned up en mass at precisely 18.10 every night just proves that they knew **** well that people would get caught out and were probably coached how to issue the most tickets.
Well done SCC, 30k in the coffers at what cost?
Just goes to show what a fiasco it is. This isn't people dodging tickets, this is a poorly thought through, disorganised , sneaky scheme which is catching motorists unaware. I can definitely say that I have seen the 2 car parks next to my flat go from nearly full most nights to now being almost empty. The fact that the wardens turned up en mass at precisely 18.10 every night just proves that they knew **** well that people would get caught out and were probably coached how to issue the most tickets. Well done SCC, 30k in the coffers at what cost? bigfella777
  • Score: 18

9:11am Thu 20 Mar 14

sotonboy84 says...

I've mentioned on here before that a friend of mine got a parking ticket at the Quays gym as their parking pass that had come with the membership had fallen onto the seat. A ticket was issued, it was appealed right up to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and Southampton City Council could not provide photographic evidence to prove the ticket wasn't on the seat.

They said that a ticket must be displayed on the dashboard but also contradicted themselves by saying a parking officer checks the vehicle throughly in case a ticket has moved or become dislodged. It seems that as an authority, their word is trusted over anybody elses. There was a season ticket in place, issued to a cars registration only so it suggests that parking tickets issued in the city are exploited as a money making exercise.

The appeal went on for months so would have cost the authority hundreds of pounds, far more than the £50 ticket. Needless to say my friend cancelled his membership and refuses to go into the city centre at all.
I've mentioned on here before that a friend of mine got a parking ticket at the Quays gym as their parking pass that had come with the membership had fallen onto the seat. A ticket was issued, it was appealed right up to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and Southampton City Council could not provide photographic evidence to prove the ticket wasn't on the seat. They said that a ticket must be displayed on the dashboard but also contradicted themselves by saying a parking officer checks the vehicle throughly in case a ticket has moved or become dislodged. It seems that as an authority, their word is trusted over anybody elses. There was a season ticket in place, issued to a cars registration only so it suggests that parking tickets issued in the city are exploited as a money making exercise. The appeal went on for months so would have cost the authority hundreds of pounds, far more than the £50 ticket. Needless to say my friend cancelled his membership and refuses to go into the city centre at all. sotonboy84
  • Score: 11

9:14am Thu 20 Mar 14

sotonboy84 says...

bigfella777 wrote:
Just goes to show what a fiasco it is. This isn't people dodging tickets, this is a poorly thought through, disorganised , sneaky scheme which is catching motorists unaware.
I can definitely say that I have seen the 2 car parks next to my flat go from nearly full most nights to now being almost empty.
The fact that the wardens turned up en mass at precisely 18.10 every night just proves that they knew **** well that people would get caught out and were probably coached how to issue the most tickets.
Well done SCC, 30k in the coffers at what cost?
I knew somebody who worked as a traffic warden a few years ago now and they eventually left as couldn't deal with the pressure of the targets. They had to issue a certain number of tickets per day as part of their job. No wonder people don't trust the city council's 'parking enforcers' who abuse their position and are finacially motivated rather than controlling traffic.
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: Just goes to show what a fiasco it is. This isn't people dodging tickets, this is a poorly thought through, disorganised , sneaky scheme which is catching motorists unaware. I can definitely say that I have seen the 2 car parks next to my flat go from nearly full most nights to now being almost empty. The fact that the wardens turned up en mass at precisely 18.10 every night just proves that they knew **** well that people would get caught out and were probably coached how to issue the most tickets. Well done SCC, 30k in the coffers at what cost?[/p][/quote]I knew somebody who worked as a traffic warden a few years ago now and they eventually left as couldn't deal with the pressure of the targets. They had to issue a certain number of tickets per day as part of their job. No wonder people don't trust the city council's 'parking enforcers' who abuse their position and are finacially motivated rather than controlling traffic. sotonboy84
  • Score: 15

9:26am Thu 20 Mar 14

Outside of the Box says...

I have been to Mayflower this month parked the car in the multi storey behind the BBC along with hundred of other people at the show, read the noticeboard, paid the fee, didn't get a fine, no problem.

Use the cash to fix the pot holes or better still re-tarmac the roads that need it, at this rate we shouldn't have a pothole left by the end of the next financial year.
I have been to Mayflower this month parked the car in the multi storey behind the BBC along with hundred of other people at the show, read the noticeboard, paid the fee, didn't get a fine, no problem. Use the cash to fix the pot holes or better still re-tarmac the roads that need it, at this rate we shouldn't have a pothole left by the end of the next financial year. Outside of the Box
  • Score: 9

9:28am Thu 20 Mar 14

Lost Generation says...

I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives.

After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.
I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives. After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city. Lost Generation
  • Score: 34

9:36am Thu 20 Mar 14

Carpe Diem says...

To all those Oxford Street traders bemoaning the imposition of the parking charges I'd say it's not the parking charge that is driving people away it's the cost of a night out in Oxford Street - £4.50 a pint in most places.
To all those Oxford Street traders bemoaning the imposition of the parking charges I'd say it's not the parking charge that is driving people away it's the cost of a night out in Oxford Street - £4.50 a pint in most places. Carpe Diem
  • Score: 8

9:37am Thu 20 Mar 14

KSO16R says...

How much free advertising does mr silsbury want ? Maybe he should shut the restaurant and open up a car park
How much free advertising does mr silsbury want ? Maybe he should shut the restaurant and open up a car park KSO16R
  • Score: 3

9:50am Thu 20 Mar 14

KSO16R says...

Lost Generation wrote:
I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives.

After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.
How much do you spend on fuel?
[quote][p][bold]Lost Generation[/bold] wrote: I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives. After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.[/p][/quote]How much do you spend on fuel? KSO16R
  • Score: 0

9:53am Thu 20 Mar 14

Kingontail says...

KSO16R wrote:
How much free advertising does mr silsbury want ? Maybe he should shut the restaurant and open up a car park
having eaten there - yes great idea.
[quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: How much free advertising does mr silsbury want ? Maybe he should shut the restaurant and open up a car park[/p][/quote]having eaten there - yes great idea. Kingontail
  • Score: 5

9:55am Thu 20 Mar 14

good-gosh says...

I don’t go out at night – it's too draughty.
I don’t go out at night – it's too draughty. good-gosh
  • Score: 3

9:57am Thu 20 Mar 14

hulla baloo says...

good-gosh wrote:
I don’t go out at night – it's too draughty.
Wear trousers.
[quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: I don’t go out at night – it's too draughty.[/p][/quote]Wear trousers. hulla baloo
  • Score: 7

10:07am Thu 20 Mar 14

tootle says...

And how many people just parked on the street at 7pm and walked off, unaware. If you don't visit the City centre often, if you don't normally park on a meter, if you KNOW you don't have to pay in the evenings then you are going to be both shocked and miffed to get a fine. First time I parked on street since the introduction of the charge was yesterday morning, it was clearly marked that evening charges applied but if you know it is free because it always has been you are hardly going to look. Unfair - warnings for first offence for a set period would be fairer.
And how many people just parked on the street at 7pm and walked off, unaware. If you don't visit the City centre often, if you don't normally park on a meter, if you KNOW you don't have to pay in the evenings then you are going to be both shocked and miffed to get a fine. First time I parked on street since the introduction of the charge was yesterday morning, it was clearly marked that evening charges applied but if you know it is free because it always has been you are hardly going to look. Unfair - warnings for first offence for a set period would be fairer. tootle
  • Score: 19

10:21am Thu 20 Mar 14

StevenGalton says...

My biggest issue is the lack of illumination on some signs/machines - they just aren't visible enough to be able to see what should be paid and when, luckily I know about the charges, but I can easily see how people are being caught out.

Also interesting pledge on where the money will be spent as some of the money is ring fenced and can't be spent how Cllr Rayment suggested.

Also hate it when the excuse other local authorities charge so we should also - well some of these authorities froze council tax, yet Labour Southampton didn't follow them on this despite government money available to do so...
My biggest issue is the lack of illumination on some signs/machines - they just aren't visible enough to be able to see what should be paid and when, luckily I know about the charges, but I can easily see how people are being caught out. Also interesting pledge on where the money will be spent as some of the money is ring fenced and can't be spent how Cllr Rayment suggested. Also hate it when the excuse other local authorities charge so we should also - well some of these authorities froze council tax, yet Labour Southampton didn't follow them on this despite government money available to do so... StevenGalton
  • Score: 13

10:42am Thu 20 Mar 14

good-gosh says...

I wouldn't mind parking if the spaces were the right size. All too often, it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle
I wouldn't mind parking if the spaces were the right size. All too often, it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle good-gosh
  • Score: 4

12:05pm Thu 20 Mar 14

loosehead says...

So I guess this really shows Labour for what they are, We want a thriving city centre day & night & the jobs it will bring really?
Or should it be it will bring a load of mugs we can either charge to park at night or hit them with fines & then say "OH! we might use this money to fix the roads aren't we doing good"?
So I guess this really shows Labour for what they are, We want a thriving city centre day & night & the jobs it will bring really? Or should it be it will bring a load of mugs we can either charge to park at night or hit them with fines & then say "OH! we might use this money to fix the roads aren't we doing good"? loosehead
  • Score: 4

12:13pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Mary80 says...

People should be thankful its only 2 quid and not anything between 4 and 7 quid
People should be thankful its only 2 quid and not anything between 4 and 7 quid Mary80
  • Score: -7

12:13pm Thu 20 Mar 14

KSO16R says...

loosehead wrote:
So I guess this really shows Labour for what they are, We want a thriving city centre day & night & the jobs it will bring really?
Or should it be it will bring a load of mugs we can either charge to park at night or hit them with fines & then say "OH! we might use this money to fix the roads aren't we doing good"?
They could always get a cab
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: So I guess this really shows Labour for what they are, We want a thriving city centre day & night & the jobs it will bring really? Or should it be it will bring a load of mugs we can either charge to park at night or hit them with fines & then say "OH! we might use this money to fix the roads aren't we doing good"?[/p][/quote]They could always get a cab KSO16R
  • Score: -3

12:40pm Thu 20 Mar 14

BeyondImagination says...

http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2382178/500m-tax-dri
vers-greedy-town-hal
ls-Parking-charges-s
oar-councils-flout-l
aw.html

This article sets out the law on councils charging for parking. This is purely a way of raising revenue. The council statement that the money will be used on the roads network is irrelevant. Charges can only be imposed to manage congestion, not just to raise money.
http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2382178/500m-tax-dri vers-greedy-town-hal ls-Parking-charges-s oar-councils-flout-l aw.html This article sets out the law on councils charging for parking. This is purely a way of raising revenue. The council statement that the money will be used on the roads network is irrelevant. Charges can only be imposed to manage congestion, not just to raise money. BeyondImagination
  • Score: 5

12:52pm Thu 20 Mar 14

billy_whizz says...

If it helps to keep the council tax down or pays to fix the potholes then I've no worries about this.
If it helps to keep the council tax down or pays to fix the potholes then I've no worries about this. billy_whizz
  • Score: -2

12:57pm Thu 20 Mar 14

manic75 says...

KSO16R wrote:
Lost Generation wrote: I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives. After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.
How much do you spend on fuel?
It's the principle of the matter, not the spend. I'll happily pay more on fuel to dine further away as quite simply I want to hurt Southampton by no longer dining there. Point is the message Southampton is sending to potential customers like me. I'm not struggling for money, i'm not rich either. When I decide to go out in an evening, I don't deliberate about how much fuel I'll use (perhaps some do but I don't). Romsey and Winchester are not that far away, so even if its further, its insignificant.

I have a democratic right to support causes I believe in. I don't believe in Southampton's cause where they want to use motorists as a cash cow. Quite simply, they don't want my business. I will support towns and businesses that do.
[quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lost Generation[/bold] wrote: I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives. After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.[/p][/quote]How much do you spend on fuel?[/p][/quote]It's the principle of the matter, not the spend. I'll happily pay more on fuel to dine further away as quite simply I want to hurt Southampton by no longer dining there. Point is the message Southampton is sending to potential customers like me. I'm not struggling for money, i'm not rich either. When I decide to go out in an evening, I don't deliberate about how much fuel I'll use (perhaps some do but I don't). Romsey and Winchester are not that far away, so even if its further, its insignificant. I have a democratic right to support causes I believe in. I don't believe in Southampton's cause where they want to use motorists as a cash cow. Quite simply, they don't want my business. I will support towns and businesses that do. manic75
  • Score: 7

1:00pm Thu 20 Mar 14

BeyondImagination says...

No worries that the council are charging illegally. Fining people illegally. Damaging businesses. Turning Southampton into a place people don't want to go after 6pm. No worries.
No worries that the council are charging illegally. Fining people illegally. Damaging businesses. Turning Southampton into a place people don't want to go after 6pm. No worries. BeyondImagination
  • Score: 13

1:15pm Thu 20 Mar 14

S!monOn says...

manic75 wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
Lost Generation wrote: I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives. After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.
How much do you spend on fuel?
It's the principle of the matter, not the spend. I'll happily pay more on fuel to dine further away as quite simply I want to hurt Southampton by no longer dining there. Point is the message Southampton is sending to potential customers like me. I'm not struggling for money, i'm not rich either. When I decide to go out in an evening, I don't deliberate about how much fuel I'll use (perhaps some do but I don't). Romsey and Winchester are not that far away, so even if its further, its insignificant.

I have a democratic right to support causes I believe in. I don't believe in Southampton's cause where they want to use motorists as a cash cow. Quite simply, they don't want my business. I will support towns and businesses that do.
But you support the Government treating the motorist as a cash cow?

I don't see any difference paying it to the Government (in petrol duty) than to local council in parking charges?

If I'm paying anyway, I'd rather support my local council and the local businesses.
[quote][p][bold]manic75[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lost Generation[/bold] wrote: I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives. After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.[/p][/quote]How much do you spend on fuel?[/p][/quote]It's the principle of the matter, not the spend. I'll happily pay more on fuel to dine further away as quite simply I want to hurt Southampton by no longer dining there. Point is the message Southampton is sending to potential customers like me. I'm not struggling for money, i'm not rich either. When I decide to go out in an evening, I don't deliberate about how much fuel I'll use (perhaps some do but I don't). Romsey and Winchester are not that far away, so even if its further, its insignificant. I have a democratic right to support causes I believe in. I don't believe in Southampton's cause where they want to use motorists as a cash cow. Quite simply, they don't want my business. I will support towns and businesses that do.[/p][/quote]But you support the Government treating the motorist as a cash cow? I don't see any difference paying it to the Government (in petrol duty) than to local council in parking charges? If I'm paying anyway, I'd rather support my local council and the local businesses. S!monOn
  • Score: -2

1:48pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Terry_Nutkins says...

Well done Southampton City Council for yet again stitching up the local businesses with more extortionate charges for the "must visit" cultural magnet that the Council think is Southampton. The quality of restaurants in the city is poor and I have had enough and moved out of the area due to the council running the city into the ground.

Night-time charging is purely a money grabbing exercise, a veritable disgrace. Still, you have done a good job of forcing a decision. I now eat elsewhere, where parking is free and the food of a better quality and price not to mention less chance of being stabbed or shot or having your car vandalised.

To purport to resurfacing the roads with the money is laughable, like it's doing us a big favour. In which direction do the hundreds of thousands of pounds acquired from the exorbitant charges we car drivers already fork out go? We pay vast fees for road tax, over-priced fuel, car repairs due to the pot holes and proclivity to install speed bumps on every new housing estate as well as the already inflated daytime parking charges in the city. I would be curious to know where this money goes.

It seems an alarming trend in the days of corporately influenced authorities to grab any cash shortfall or budget anomaly by imposing and insidiously inventing new charges to siphon off the last remnants of the disposable income of the working classes. The central pool of money that seems to fund the entire economy comes from the working classes while tax exiles reap the benefits and the poor seem to get poorer and poorer. It's not nice living in a plutocracy. This country is laughable and it's about time a sensible structure was invented to facilitate the working families and assert some economic balance and not squeeze the last drops of cash from an already depleted working core. Billions are lost from the upper echelons avoiding taxes and until that matter is addressed, this country will lead to ruin.

And whilst you're at it, resurface the roads. How much was paid out in damaged tyres/wheels to motorists hitting pot holes on our shambolic roads in Hampshire? (to be fair, the entire country).

Never in my life have the nation's road surfaces been so poor. You don't need night-time charges to lazily justify that ludicrous action. Just add up the amount of car tax discs in a postcode and when you tally the thousands and thousands of pounds, it may strike a chord with people and get people to wonder where the money is actually going. Errrr, maybe a few million on the traffic lights at Redbridge Roundabout. Great budgeting that. No wonder we are in the dog house with road maintenance of that cost. Double standards spring to mind. Still, stiff the workers with further stealth (and not so stealth) charges and waste millions on over-priced nonsense and traffic "calming" we so desperately need in Southampton. Rant over. 35mins to travel 1.5miles due to 32.5mins sat at traffic lights. Genius. It's nice living elsewhere. You drive around and.....reach your destination in a sensible time frame...just.

Keep up the good work SCC. The receivers have never been busier.
Well done Southampton City Council for yet again stitching up the local businesses with more extortionate charges for the "must visit" cultural magnet that the Council think is Southampton. The quality of restaurants in the city is poor and I have had enough and moved out of the area due to the council running the city into the ground. Night-time charging is purely a money grabbing exercise, a veritable disgrace. Still, you have done a good job of forcing a decision. I now eat elsewhere, where parking is free and the food of a better quality and price not to mention less chance of being stabbed or shot or having your car vandalised. To purport to resurfacing the roads with the money is laughable, like it's doing us a big favour. In which direction do the hundreds of thousands of pounds acquired from the exorbitant charges we car drivers already fork out go? We pay vast fees for road tax, over-priced fuel, car repairs due to the pot holes and proclivity to install speed bumps on every new housing estate as well as the already inflated daytime parking charges in the city. I would be curious to know where this money goes. It seems an alarming trend in the days of corporately influenced authorities to grab any cash shortfall or budget anomaly by imposing and insidiously inventing new charges to siphon off the last remnants of the disposable income of the working classes. The central pool of money that seems to fund the entire economy comes from the working classes while tax exiles reap the benefits and the poor seem to get poorer and poorer. It's not nice living in a plutocracy. This country is laughable and it's about time a sensible structure was invented to facilitate the working families and assert some economic balance and not squeeze the last drops of cash from an already depleted working core. Billions are lost from the upper echelons avoiding taxes and until that matter is addressed, this country will lead to ruin. And whilst you're at it, resurface the roads. How much was paid out in damaged tyres/wheels to motorists hitting pot holes on our shambolic roads in Hampshire? (to be fair, the entire country). Never in my life have the nation's road surfaces been so poor. You don't need night-time charges to lazily justify that ludicrous action. Just add up the amount of car tax discs in a postcode and when you tally the thousands and thousands of pounds, it may strike a chord with people and get people to wonder where the money is actually going. Errrr, maybe a few million on the traffic lights at Redbridge Roundabout. Great budgeting that. No wonder we are in the dog house with road maintenance of that cost. Double standards spring to mind. Still, stiff the workers with further stealth (and not so stealth) charges and waste millions on over-priced nonsense and traffic "calming" we so desperately need in Southampton. Rant over. 35mins to travel 1.5miles due to 32.5mins sat at traffic lights. Genius. It's nice living elsewhere. You drive around and.....reach your destination in a sensible time frame...just. Keep up the good work SCC. The receivers have never been busier. Terry_Nutkins
  • Score: 6

1:54pm Thu 20 Mar 14

manic75 says...

S!monOn wrote:
manic75 wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
Lost Generation wrote: I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives. After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.
How much do you spend on fuel?
It's the principle of the matter, not the spend. I'll happily pay more on fuel to dine further away as quite simply I want to hurt Southampton by no longer dining there. Point is the message Southampton is sending to potential customers like me. I'm not struggling for money, i'm not rich either. When I decide to go out in an evening, I don't deliberate about how much fuel I'll use (perhaps some do but I don't). Romsey and Winchester are not that far away, so even if its further, its insignificant. I have a democratic right to support causes I believe in. I don't believe in Southampton's cause where they want to use motorists as a cash cow. Quite simply, they don't want my business. I will support towns and businesses that do.
But you support the Government treating the motorist as a cash cow? I don't see any difference paying it to the Government (in petrol duty) than to local council in parking charges? If I'm paying anyway, I'd rather support my local council and the local businesses.
I'm not talking about driving hundreds of miles out of my way to avoid Southampton, perhaps just a few extra miles, so the difference is insignificant. The point is there is competition on Southampton's doorstep i.e. Winchester and Romsey.

My ability to influence change is far greater at local level than at National level i.e. if I and others boycott Southampton and take our money elsewhere, businesses will suffer (clearly evident in this article), and the council will suffer with reduced revenues through business tax, parking, etc. They will be forced to change their policy - just a matter of time. What chance do I have of changing national policy on fuel duty???
[quote][p][bold]S!monOn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]manic75[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lost Generation[/bold] wrote: I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives. After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.[/p][/quote]How much do you spend on fuel?[/p][/quote]It's the principle of the matter, not the spend. I'll happily pay more on fuel to dine further away as quite simply I want to hurt Southampton by no longer dining there. Point is the message Southampton is sending to potential customers like me. I'm not struggling for money, i'm not rich either. When I decide to go out in an evening, I don't deliberate about how much fuel I'll use (perhaps some do but I don't). Romsey and Winchester are not that far away, so even if its further, its insignificant. I have a democratic right to support causes I believe in. I don't believe in Southampton's cause where they want to use motorists as a cash cow. Quite simply, they don't want my business. I will support towns and businesses that do.[/p][/quote]But you support the Government treating the motorist as a cash cow? I don't see any difference paying it to the Government (in petrol duty) than to local council in parking charges? If I'm paying anyway, I'd rather support my local council and the local businesses.[/p][/quote]I'm not talking about driving hundreds of miles out of my way to avoid Southampton, perhaps just a few extra miles, so the difference is insignificant. The point is there is competition on Southampton's doorstep i.e. Winchester and Romsey. My ability to influence change is far greater at local level than at National level i.e. if I and others boycott Southampton and take our money elsewhere, businesses will suffer (clearly evident in this article), and the council will suffer with reduced revenues through business tax, parking, etc. They will be forced to change their policy - just a matter of time. What chance do I have of changing national policy on fuel duty??? manic75
  • Score: 5

2:00pm Thu 20 Mar 14

999medic says...

Havent the Council that there is/ was a probelm with the porking meters and that they needed reprogramming, if this is the case dont pay, they havent sorted machines so why should anyone be penalised. The council are cuttin g cutting services yet raking in **** loads of cash at the expense of all of us. The night time charge should be scrapped.
Havent the Council that there is/ was a probelm with the porking meters and that they needed reprogramming, if this is the case dont pay, they havent sorted machines so why should anyone be penalised. The council are cuttin g cutting services yet raking in **** loads of cash at the expense of all of us. The night time charge should be scrapped. 999medic
  • Score: 4

2:08pm Thu 20 Mar 14

charrlee says...

If cyclists wore identity jackets where a registration number was visible to CCTV and the police, and their bikes were registered, a fair bit of money could be made out of them riding on the path, going through red lights, and all the other infringements they get away with at present.
If cyclists wore identity jackets where a registration number was visible to CCTV and the police, and their bikes were registered, a fair bit of money could be made out of them riding on the path, going through red lights, and all the other infringements they get away with at present. charrlee
  • Score: 7

2:18pm Thu 20 Mar 14

charrlee says...

999medic wrote:
Havent the Council that there is/ was a probelm with the porking meters and that they needed reprogramming, if this is the case dont pay, they havent sorted machines so why should anyone be penalised. The council are cuttin g cutting services yet raking in **** loads of cash at the expense of all of us. The night time charge should be scrapped.
Porking meters ? Don't dey hab dem in Noo Yawk ?

What's a grudge ? It's where a white South Ifrican porks his caw ! (Told to me by a white South Ifrican librarian ! This NOT racist as it is in no way inciting racial hatred or prejudice. It's about the way different cultures pronounce the word "park", and other words. If an actor uses a different accent to his/her own, is that racism? No. OK, Mary80, before you start?)
[quote][p][bold]999medic[/bold] wrote: Havent the Council that there is/ was a probelm with the porking meters and that they needed reprogramming, if this is the case dont pay, they havent sorted machines so why should anyone be penalised. The council are cuttin g cutting services yet raking in **** loads of cash at the expense of all of us. The night time charge should be scrapped.[/p][/quote]Porking meters ? Don't dey hab dem in Noo Yawk ? What's a grudge ? It's where a white South Ifrican porks his caw ! (Told to me by a white South Ifrican librarian ! This NOT racist as it is in no way inciting racial hatred or prejudice. It's about the way different cultures pronounce the word "park", and other words. If an actor uses a different accent to his/her own, is that racism? No. OK, Mary80, before you start?) charrlee
  • Score: 2

2:30pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Bob Barnes says...

StevenGalton wrote:
My biggest issue is the lack of illumination on some signs/machines - they just aren't visible enough to be able to see what should be paid and when, luckily I know about the charges, but I can easily see how people are being caught out.

Also interesting pledge on where the money will be spent as some of the money is ring fenced and can't be spent how Cllr Rayment suggested.

Also hate it when the excuse other local authorities charge so we should also - well some of these authorities froze council tax, yet Labour Southampton didn't follow them on this despite government money available to do so...
Go To specsavers ask them for night vision spectacles
[quote][p][bold]StevenGalton[/bold] wrote: My biggest issue is the lack of illumination on some signs/machines - they just aren't visible enough to be able to see what should be paid and when, luckily I know about the charges, but I can easily see how people are being caught out. Also interesting pledge on where the money will be spent as some of the money is ring fenced and can't be spent how Cllr Rayment suggested. Also hate it when the excuse other local authorities charge so we should also - well some of these authorities froze council tax, yet Labour Southampton didn't follow them on this despite government money available to do so...[/p][/quote]Go To specsavers ask them for night vision spectacles Bob Barnes
  • Score: -5

3:00pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Lone Ranger. says...

StevenGalton wrote:
My biggest issue is the lack of illumination on some signs/machines - they just aren't visible enough to be able to see what should be paid and when, luckily I know about the charges, but I can easily see how people are being caught out.

Also interesting pledge on where the money will be spent as some of the money is ring fenced and can't be spent how Cllr Rayment suggested.

Also hate it when the excuse other local authorities charge so we should also - well some of these authorities froze council tax, yet Labour Southampton didn't follow them on this despite government money available to do so...
Obviously illumination wasnt your biggest issue ......
.
How do these night time parking charges compare to the ones that the Tories brought in a few years ago ?
[quote][p][bold]StevenGalton[/bold] wrote: My biggest issue is the lack of illumination on some signs/machines - they just aren't visible enough to be able to see what should be paid and when, luckily I know about the charges, but I can easily see how people are being caught out. Also interesting pledge on where the money will be spent as some of the money is ring fenced and can't be spent how Cllr Rayment suggested. Also hate it when the excuse other local authorities charge so we should also - well some of these authorities froze council tax, yet Labour Southampton didn't follow them on this despite government money available to do so...[/p][/quote]Obviously illumination wasnt your biggest issue ...... . How do these night time parking charges compare to the ones that the Tories brought in a few years ago ? Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -2

3:52pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Juliek1958 says...

Although the DE comments on the new annual parking charges of £30 for the the first residents parking permit in their report, I haven't seen any comments so far, so let me be the first. My father lives in an area where this parking charge is coming into play, he has a disabled bay outside, for his and other disabled drivers use, and believes firmly that he will need to pay his way, so has set his DD accordingly. What he does object to, and I agree with him, is so called neighbours, who obviously run a business, parking their 7.5 tonne trucks either side of the road, oblivious to others peoples need to park. My question is: what, or how, are Southampton City Council going to charge, or fine, these people who I'm sure will NOT be registering these vehicles for a parking permit!
Although the DE comments on the new annual parking charges of £30 for the the first residents parking permit in their report, I haven't seen any comments so far, so let me be the first. My father lives in an area where this parking charge is coming into play, he has a disabled bay outside, for his and other disabled drivers use, and believes firmly that he will need to pay his way, so has set his DD accordingly. What he does object to, and I agree with him, is so called neighbours, who obviously run a business, parking their 7.5 tonne trucks either side of the road, oblivious to others peoples need to park. My question is: what, or how, are Southampton City Council going to charge, or fine, these people who I'm sure will NOT be registering these vehicles for a parking permit! Juliek1958
  • Score: 0

3:55pm Thu 20 Mar 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

Mr Silsbury seems to be the 'tame' Oxford Street trader to whom the Echo always go when they need a quote. Given that there's never anyone in his restaurant I assume it's an important source of income for him.
Mr Silsbury seems to be the 'tame' Oxford Street trader to whom the Echo always go when they need a quote. Given that there's never anyone in his restaurant I assume it's an important source of income for him. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 5

4:05pm Thu 20 Mar 14

loosehead says...

Bob Barnes wrote:
StevenGalton wrote:
My biggest issue is the lack of illumination on some signs/machines - they just aren't visible enough to be able to see what should be paid and when, luckily I know about the charges, but I can easily see how people are being caught out.

Also interesting pledge on where the money will be spent as some of the money is ring fenced and can't be spent how Cllr Rayment suggested.

Also hate it when the excuse other local authorities charge so we should also - well some of these authorities froze council tax, yet Labour Southampton didn't follow them on this despite government money available to do so...
Go To specsavers ask them for night vision spectacles
go to Liverpool & make your obscene rants against scousers up there!
[quote][p][bold]Bob Barnes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]StevenGalton[/bold] wrote: My biggest issue is the lack of illumination on some signs/machines - they just aren't visible enough to be able to see what should be paid and when, luckily I know about the charges, but I can easily see how people are being caught out. Also interesting pledge on where the money will be spent as some of the money is ring fenced and can't be spent how Cllr Rayment suggested. Also hate it when the excuse other local authorities charge so we should also - well some of these authorities froze council tax, yet Labour Southampton didn't follow them on this despite government money available to do so...[/p][/quote]Go To specsavers ask them for night vision spectacles[/p][/quote]go to Liverpool & make your obscene rants against scousers up there! loosehead
  • Score: 1

4:08pm Thu 20 Mar 14

loosehead says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
StevenGalton wrote:
My biggest issue is the lack of illumination on some signs/machines - they just aren't visible enough to be able to see what should be paid and when, luckily I know about the charges, but I can easily see how people are being caught out.

Also interesting pledge on where the money will be spent as some of the money is ring fenced and can't be spent how Cllr Rayment suggested.

Also hate it when the excuse other local authorities charge so we should also - well some of these authorities froze council tax, yet Labour Southampton didn't follow them on this despite government money available to do so...
Obviously illumination wasnt your biggest issue ......
.
How do these night time parking charges compare to the ones that the Tories brought in a few years ago ?
equal the difference is the Tories saw what harm night charges & higher parking charges did so scrapped night timer charges & lowered daytime charges will Labour admit they've got it wrong?
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]StevenGalton[/bold] wrote: My biggest issue is the lack of illumination on some signs/machines - they just aren't visible enough to be able to see what should be paid and when, luckily I know about the charges, but I can easily see how people are being caught out. Also interesting pledge on where the money will be spent as some of the money is ring fenced and can't be spent how Cllr Rayment suggested. Also hate it when the excuse other local authorities charge so we should also - well some of these authorities froze council tax, yet Labour Southampton didn't follow them on this despite government money available to do so...[/p][/quote]Obviously illumination wasnt your biggest issue ...... . How do these night time parking charges compare to the ones that the Tories brought in a few years ago ?[/p][/quote]equal the difference is the Tories saw what harm night charges & higher parking charges did so scrapped night timer charges & lowered daytime charges will Labour admit they've got it wrong? loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:20pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Brubaker45 says...

Whilst these grubby grasping self centered councillors are rubbing their hand with glee at their success in further persecution of their voters (remember this when they want re-electing folks) divide this amount by the number of tickets and that' at least those who won't come into Southampton again probably. Lots of out of town places, other pubs, other shops, other theatres and cinemas, etc ,etc. Without the sadism! Local businesses prepare your high street to become the land of charity shops like Eastleigh!!
Whilst these grubby grasping self centered councillors are rubbing their hand with glee at their success in further persecution of their voters (remember this when they want re-electing folks) divide this amount by the number of tickets and that' at least those who won't come into Southampton again probably. Lots of out of town places, other pubs, other shops, other theatres and cinemas, etc ,etc. Without the sadism! Local businesses prepare your high street to become the land of charity shops like Eastleigh!! Brubaker45
  • Score: 7

4:32pm Thu 20 Mar 14

solentsu says...

" And it sparked calls from opposition leaders for council chiefs to scrap the levy on residents living in parts of the city who are now being forced to pay to park outside their own homes.

That scheme was introduced in November last year and meant that drivers have to stump up an annual charge of £30 for first residents’ permits in 13 existing permit zones across the city – despite them previously being free.

It affected hundreds of people living in roads across Shirley, Freemantle, Woolston, Newtown, and Coxford. "


What about the residents who live in the city centre itself? We have also been affected but seem to have been 'forgotten' by the Echo!!

I say boycott paying for your resident parking permit, collect up all the parking fines and make a lovely collage out of them. Ideally on the front of the council offices.
" And it sparked calls from opposition leaders for council chiefs to scrap the levy on residents living in parts of the city who are now being forced to pay to park outside their own homes. That scheme was introduced in November last year and meant that drivers have to stump up an annual charge of £30 for first residents’ permits in 13 existing permit zones across the city – despite them previously being free. It affected hundreds of people living in roads across Shirley, Freemantle, Woolston, Newtown, and Coxford. " What about the residents who live in the city centre itself? We have also been affected but seem to have been 'forgotten' by the Echo!! I say boycott paying for your resident parking permit, collect up all the parking fines and make a lovely collage out of them. Ideally on the front of the council offices. solentsu
  • Score: 2

5:48pm Thu 20 Mar 14

The Watcher says...

So something like 96% of motorists correctly pay up and park, but for politically motivated reasons we make a fuss over the 4% who don't.

Mountains over molehills here.

Being generous, I suggest an amnesty for a couple of weeks with non compliant motorists receiving a note about new fees, some more publicity and then carry on as normal.

I regularly park in the privately run NCP of an evening when visiting friends in Portland Terrace and have to pay there.
So something like 96% of motorists correctly pay up and park, but for politically motivated reasons we make a fuss over the 4% who don't. Mountains over molehills here. Being generous, I suggest an amnesty for a couple of weeks with non compliant motorists receiving a note about new fees, some more publicity and then carry on as normal. I regularly park in the privately run NCP of an evening when visiting friends in Portland Terrace and have to pay there. The Watcher
  • Score: 2

6:03pm Thu 20 Mar 14

KSO16R says...

loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
StevenGalton wrote:
My biggest issue is the lack of illumination on some signs/machines - they just aren't visible enough to be able to see what should be paid and when, luckily I know about the charges, but I can easily see how people are being caught out.

Also interesting pledge on where the money will be spent as some of the money is ring fenced and can't be spent how Cllr Rayment suggested.

Also hate it when the excuse other local authorities charge so we should also - well some of these authorities froze council tax, yet Labour Southampton didn't follow them on this despite government money available to do so...
Obviously illumination wasnt your biggest issue ......
.
How do these night time parking charges compare to the ones that the Tories brought in a few years ago ?
equal the difference is the Tories saw what harm night charges & higher parking charges did so scrapped night timer charges & lowered daytime charges will Labour admit they've got it wrong?
This will not adversely affect the businesses in town as much as is being suggested but the charge will, hopefully, help the residents of Southampton
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]StevenGalton[/bold] wrote: My biggest issue is the lack of illumination on some signs/machines - they just aren't visible enough to be able to see what should be paid and when, luckily I know about the charges, but I can easily see how people are being caught out. Also interesting pledge on where the money will be spent as some of the money is ring fenced and can't be spent how Cllr Rayment suggested. Also hate it when the excuse other local authorities charge so we should also - well some of these authorities froze council tax, yet Labour Southampton didn't follow them on this despite government money available to do so...[/p][/quote]Obviously illumination wasnt your biggest issue ...... . How do these night time parking charges compare to the ones that the Tories brought in a few years ago ?[/p][/quote]equal the difference is the Tories saw what harm night charges & higher parking charges did so scrapped night timer charges & lowered daytime charges will Labour admit they've got it wrong?[/p][/quote]This will not adversely affect the businesses in town as much as is being suggested but the charge will, hopefully, help the residents of Southampton KSO16R
  • Score: -2

6:33pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

The Watcher wrote:
So something like 96% of motorists correctly pay up and park, but for politically motivated reasons we make a fuss over the 4% who don't.

Mountains over molehills here.

Being generous, I suggest an amnesty for a couple of weeks with non compliant motorists receiving a note about new fees, some more publicity and then carry on as normal.

I regularly park in the privately run NCP of an evening when visiting friends in Portland Terrace and have to pay there.
I think the argument is that we've already paid for the streets, many times over. If NCP is charging you for parking on a public street then I suspect you're being conned.
If councils were not paying their "Chief Executives" and all the other clerks which they call "managers" megabucks then possibly people would not feel so angry.
[quote][p][bold]The Watcher[/bold] wrote: So something like 96% of motorists correctly pay up and park, but for politically motivated reasons we make a fuss over the 4% who don't. Mountains over molehills here. Being generous, I suggest an amnesty for a couple of weeks with non compliant motorists receiving a note about new fees, some more publicity and then carry on as normal. I regularly park in the privately run NCP of an evening when visiting friends in Portland Terrace and have to pay there.[/p][/quote]I think the argument is that we've already paid for the streets, many times over. If NCP is charging you for parking on a public street then I suspect you're being conned. If councils were not paying their "Chief Executives" and all the other clerks which they call "managers" megabucks then possibly people would not feel so angry. Dai Rear
  • Score: 1

6:37pm Thu 20 Mar 14

solentsu says...

KSO16R wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
StevenGalton wrote:
My biggest issue is the lack of illumination on some signs/machines - they just aren't visible enough to be able to see what should be paid and when, luckily I know about the charges, but I can easily see how people are being caught out.

Also interesting pledge on where the money will be spent as some of the money is ring fenced and can't be spent how Cllr Rayment suggested.

Also hate it when the excuse other local authorities charge so we should also - well some of these authorities froze council tax, yet Labour Southampton didn't follow them on this despite government money available to do so...
Obviously illumination wasnt your biggest issue ......
.
How do these night time parking charges compare to the ones that the Tories brought in a few years ago ?
equal the difference is the Tories saw what harm night charges & higher parking charges did so scrapped night timer charges & lowered daytime charges will Labour admit they've got it wrong?
This will not adversely affect the businesses in town as much as is being suggested but the charge will, hopefully, help the residents of Southampton
Can you please explain how you think that the "charge will, hopefully, help the residents of Southampton"? Being a resident who lives in the city centre, being charged to park in the streets around where I live in the evening (I am not guaranteed a parking space near my house), benefits me in what way exactly? I just see it as an additional council tax on living in the city centre.
[quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]StevenGalton[/bold] wrote: My biggest issue is the lack of illumination on some signs/machines - they just aren't visible enough to be able to see what should be paid and when, luckily I know about the charges, but I can easily see how people are being caught out. Also interesting pledge on where the money will be spent as some of the money is ring fenced and can't be spent how Cllr Rayment suggested. Also hate it when the excuse other local authorities charge so we should also - well some of these authorities froze council tax, yet Labour Southampton didn't follow them on this despite government money available to do so...[/p][/quote]Obviously illumination wasnt your biggest issue ...... . How do these night time parking charges compare to the ones that the Tories brought in a few years ago ?[/p][/quote]equal the difference is the Tories saw what harm night charges & higher parking charges did so scrapped night timer charges & lowered daytime charges will Labour admit they've got it wrong?[/p][/quote]This will not adversely affect the businesses in town as much as is being suggested but the charge will, hopefully, help the residents of Southampton[/p][/quote]Can you please explain how you think that the "charge will, hopefully, help the residents of Southampton"? Being a resident who lives in the city centre, being charged to park in the streets around where I live in the evening (I am not guaranteed a parking space near my house), benefits me in what way exactly? I just see it as an additional council tax on living in the city centre. solentsu
  • Score: 3

7:07pm Thu 20 Mar 14

JohnSoton says...

What is a disgrace is charging residents living in town centre! FREE PARKING FOR RESIDENTS!!!
What is a disgrace is charging residents living in town centre! FREE PARKING FOR RESIDENTS!!! JohnSoton
  • Score: 2

7:21pm Thu 20 Mar 14

JohnSoton says...

solentsu wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
StevenGalton wrote:
My biggest issue is the lack of illumination on some signs/machines - they just aren't visible enough to be able to see what should be paid and when, luckily I know about the charges, but I can easily see how people are being caught out.

Also interesting pledge on where the money will be spent as some of the money is ring fenced and can't be spent how Cllr Rayment suggested.

Also hate it when the excuse other local authorities charge so we should also - well some of these authorities froze council tax, yet Labour Southampton didn't follow them on this despite government money available to do so...
Obviously illumination wasnt your biggest issue ......
.
How do these night time parking charges compare to the ones that the Tories brought in a few years ago ?
equal the difference is the Tories saw what harm night charges & higher parking charges did so scrapped night timer charges & lowered daytime charges will Labour admit they've got it wrong?
This will not adversely affect the businesses in town as much as is being suggested but the charge will, hopefully, help the residents of Southampton
Can you please explain how you think that the "charge will, hopefully, help the residents of Southampton"? Being a resident who lives in the city centre, being charged to park in the streets around where I live in the evening (I am not guaranteed a parking space near my house), benefits me in what way exactly? I just see it as an additional council tax on living in the city centre.
Same here, resident living in town centre for 10 years and my life has become a nightmare with the parking. It’s ridiculous you have to pay for parking in your house street. They need to sort the parking issue for residents by allocating more permit areas or providing affordable city centre permits (current annual “residents season ticket” is £750.00!!! and annual “evening and weekend season ticket” £400.00!!!). Do they really think people can afford £750 just for parking???. Or £400 for parking the weekend? They are so disconnected from reality, they clearly do not understand resident’s needs. I just see this too as an additional council tax for us living in the city centre.
[quote][p][bold]solentsu[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]StevenGalton[/bold] wrote: My biggest issue is the lack of illumination on some signs/machines - they just aren't visible enough to be able to see what should be paid and when, luckily I know about the charges, but I can easily see how people are being caught out. Also interesting pledge on where the money will be spent as some of the money is ring fenced and can't be spent how Cllr Rayment suggested. Also hate it when the excuse other local authorities charge so we should also - well some of these authorities froze council tax, yet Labour Southampton didn't follow them on this despite government money available to do so...[/p][/quote]Obviously illumination wasnt your biggest issue ...... . How do these night time parking charges compare to the ones that the Tories brought in a few years ago ?[/p][/quote]equal the difference is the Tories saw what harm night charges & higher parking charges did so scrapped night timer charges & lowered daytime charges will Labour admit they've got it wrong?[/p][/quote]This will not adversely affect the businesses in town as much as is being suggested but the charge will, hopefully, help the residents of Southampton[/p][/quote]Can you please explain how you think that the "charge will, hopefully, help the residents of Southampton"? Being a resident who lives in the city centre, being charged to park in the streets around where I live in the evening (I am not guaranteed a parking space near my house), benefits me in what way exactly? I just see it as an additional council tax on living in the city centre.[/p][/quote]Same here, resident living in town centre for 10 years and my life has become a nightmare with the parking. It’s ridiculous you have to pay for parking in your house street. They need to sort the parking issue for residents by allocating more permit areas or providing affordable city centre permits (current annual “residents season ticket” is £750.00!!! and annual “evening and weekend season ticket” £400.00!!!). Do they really think people can afford £750 just for parking???. Or £400 for parking the weekend? They are so disconnected from reality, they clearly do not understand resident’s needs. I just see this too as an additional council tax for us living in the city centre. JohnSoton
  • Score: 3

7:27pm Thu 20 Mar 14

JohnSoton says...

solentsu wrote:
" And it sparked calls from opposition leaders for council chiefs to scrap the levy on residents living in parts of the city who are now being forced to pay to park outside their own homes.

That scheme was introduced in November last year and meant that drivers have to stump up an annual charge of £30 for first residents’ permits in 13 existing permit zones across the city – despite them previously being free.

It affected hundreds of people living in roads across Shirley, Freemantle, Woolston, Newtown, and Coxford. "


What about the residents who live in the city centre itself? We have also been affected but seem to have been 'forgotten' by the Echo!!

I say boycott paying for your resident parking permit, collect up all the parking fines and make a lovely collage out of them. Ideally on the front of the council offices.
Yes exactly, what about residents living in the city centre? People are complaining for the £30 charge, when I have now to pay £750 for all day or £400 for the weekends only.
[quote][p][bold]solentsu[/bold] wrote: " And it sparked calls from opposition leaders for council chiefs to scrap the levy on residents living in parts of the city who are now being forced to pay to park outside their own homes. That scheme was introduced in November last year and meant that drivers have to stump up an annual charge of £30 for first residents’ permits in 13 existing permit zones across the city – despite them previously being free. It affected hundreds of people living in roads across Shirley, Freemantle, Woolston, Newtown, and Coxford. " What about the residents who live in the city centre itself? We have also been affected but seem to have been 'forgotten' by the Echo!! I say boycott paying for your resident parking permit, collect up all the parking fines and make a lovely collage out of them. Ideally on the front of the council offices.[/p][/quote]Yes exactly, what about residents living in the city centre? People are complaining for the £30 charge, when I have now to pay £750 for all day or £400 for the weekends only. JohnSoton
  • Score: 1

7:30pm Thu 20 Mar 14

JohnSoton says...

KSO16R wrote:
Read the signs don't pay the fines . . . . Simple !
It’s not that simple, what about city centre residents having now to pay? How would you feel paying for parking in your street? It's just wrong!
[quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: Read the signs don't pay the fines . . . . Simple ![/p][/quote]It’s not that simple, what about city centre residents having now to pay? How would you feel paying for parking in your street? It's just wrong! JohnSoton
  • Score: 2

7:34pm Thu 20 Mar 14

JohnSoton says...

Lost Generation wrote:
I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives.

After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.
What a shame it’s becoming cheaper to park in London that in Southampton!!
[quote][p][bold]Lost Generation[/bold] wrote: I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives. After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.[/p][/quote]What a shame it’s becoming cheaper to park in London that in Southampton!! JohnSoton
  • Score: 1

7:38pm Thu 20 Mar 14

The Watcher says...

Dai Rear wrote:
The Watcher wrote:
So something like 96% of motorists correctly pay up and park, but for politically motivated reasons we make a fuss over the 4% who don't.

Mountains over molehills here.

Being generous, I suggest an amnesty for a couple of weeks with non compliant motorists receiving a note about new fees, some more publicity and then carry on as normal.

I regularly park in the privately run NCP of an evening when visiting friends in Portland Terrace and have to pay there.
I think the argument is that we've already paid for the streets, many times over. If NCP is charging you for parking on a public street then I suspect you're being conned.
If councils were not paying their "Chief Executives" and all the other clerks which they call "managers" megabucks then possibly people would not feel so angry.
And I suspect that the NCP car parks have been paid for many times over. They provide a service and you pay for it.

Hopefully this money will be reinvested in to road repairs and related services and additionally to pay for the wardens and patrols that help to ensure car thefts are reduced.

When I park overnight in one of the council multi storeys, car parks and even on the roads I receive a degree of protection from the 24hr CCTV surveillance and whilst wardens are on patrol.

I would tend to agree that the issues relating to residents parking need to be addressed, but then again if you live in the city centre and have to park on public roads then there will always be the danger that you will have to pay for that privilege.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Watcher[/bold] wrote: So something like 96% of motorists correctly pay up and park, but for politically motivated reasons we make a fuss over the 4% who don't. Mountains over molehills here. Being generous, I suggest an amnesty for a couple of weeks with non compliant motorists receiving a note about new fees, some more publicity and then carry on as normal. I regularly park in the privately run NCP of an evening when visiting friends in Portland Terrace and have to pay there.[/p][/quote]I think the argument is that we've already paid for the streets, many times over. If NCP is charging you for parking on a public street then I suspect you're being conned. If councils were not paying their "Chief Executives" and all the other clerks which they call "managers" megabucks then possibly people would not feel so angry.[/p][/quote]And I suspect that the NCP car parks have been paid for many times over. They provide a service and you pay for it. Hopefully this money will be reinvested in to road repairs and related services and additionally to pay for the wardens and patrols that help to ensure car thefts are reduced. When I park overnight in one of the council multi storeys, car parks and even on the roads I receive a degree of protection from the 24hr CCTV surveillance and whilst wardens are on patrol. I would tend to agree that the issues relating to residents parking need to be addressed, but then again if you live in the city centre and have to park on public roads then there will always be the danger that you will have to pay for that privilege. The Watcher
  • Score: 1

7:48pm Thu 20 Mar 14

KSO16R says...

JohnSoton wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
Read the signs don't pay the fines . . . . Simple !
It’s not that simple, what about city centre residents having now to pay? How would you feel paying for parking in your street? It's just wrong!
Get a bik and nt a car when you need one. It has got to be cheaper or move if you cant do without owning a car. I understand your frustration but there just isn't enough space. Judging by the new flats being built it's going to get worse. My original comment was aimed at visitors to the city centre.
[quote][p][bold]JohnSoton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: Read the signs don't pay the fines . . . . Simple ![/p][/quote]It’s not that simple, what about city centre residents having now to pay? How would you feel paying for parking in your street? It's just wrong![/p][/quote]Get a bik and nt a car when you need one. It has got to be cheaper or move if you cant do without owning a car. I understand your frustration but there just isn't enough space. Judging by the new flats being built it's going to get worse. My original comment was aimed at visitors to the city centre. KSO16R
  • Score: -2

7:57pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Lone Ranger. says...

JohnSoton wrote:
Lost Generation wrote:
I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives.

After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.
What a shame it’s becoming cheaper to park in London that in Southampton!!
You obviously have never been to London
[quote][p][bold]JohnSoton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lost Generation[/bold] wrote: I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives. After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.[/p][/quote]What a shame it’s becoming cheaper to park in London that in Southampton!![/p][/quote]You obviously have never been to London Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -2

8:00pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Lone Ranger. says...

loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
StevenGalton wrote:
My biggest issue is the lack of illumination on some signs/machines - they just aren't visible enough to be able to see what should be paid and when, luckily I know about the charges, but I can easily see how people are being caught out.

Also interesting pledge on where the money will be spent as some of the money is ring fenced and can't be spent how Cllr Rayment suggested.

Also hate it when the excuse other local authorities charge so we should also - well some of these authorities froze council tax, yet Labour Southampton didn't follow them on this despite government money available to do so...
Obviously illumination wasnt your biggest issue ......
.
How do these night time parking charges compare to the ones that the Tories brought in a few years ago ?
equal the difference is the Tories saw what harm night charges & higher parking charges did so scrapped night timer charges & lowered daytime charges will Labour admit they've got it wrong?
Are you speaking in a foreign language ??
.
Anyway if i have translated your pidgeon English correctly ..... You are wrong ....... Again.
.
Oh and the Tories brought in Sunday parking charges
.
Found out what LOL stands for yet .... Try this one .... your comments make me LMAO
.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]StevenGalton[/bold] wrote: My biggest issue is the lack of illumination on some signs/machines - they just aren't visible enough to be able to see what should be paid and when, luckily I know about the charges, but I can easily see how people are being caught out. Also interesting pledge on where the money will be spent as some of the money is ring fenced and can't be spent how Cllr Rayment suggested. Also hate it when the excuse other local authorities charge so we should also - well some of these authorities froze council tax, yet Labour Southampton didn't follow them on this despite government money available to do so...[/p][/quote]Obviously illumination wasnt your biggest issue ...... . How do these night time parking charges compare to the ones that the Tories brought in a few years ago ?[/p][/quote]equal the difference is the Tories saw what harm night charges & higher parking charges did so scrapped night timer charges & lowered daytime charges will Labour admit they've got it wrong?[/p][/quote]Are you speaking in a foreign language ?? . Anyway if i have translated your pidgeon English correctly ..... You are wrong ....... Again. . Oh and the Tories brought in Sunday parking charges . Found out what LOL stands for yet .... Try this one .... your comments make me LMAO . Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

8:56pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Huffter says...

Lost Generation wrote:
I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives.

After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.
And how much does it cost to drive to the New Forest or Romsey?
[quote][p][bold]Lost Generation[/bold] wrote: I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives. After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.[/p][/quote]And how much does it cost to drive to the New Forest or Romsey? Huffter
  • Score: 0

9:09pm Thu 20 Mar 14

loosehead says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
StevenGalton wrote:
My biggest issue is the lack of illumination on some signs/machines - they just aren't visible enough to be able to see what should be paid and when, luckily I know about the charges, but I can easily see how people are being caught out.

Also interesting pledge on where the money will be spent as some of the money is ring fenced and can't be spent how Cllr Rayment suggested.

Also hate it when the excuse other local authorities charge so we should also - well some of these authorities froze council tax, yet Labour Southampton didn't follow them on this despite government money available to do so...
Obviously illumination wasnt your biggest issue ......
.
How do these night time parking charges compare to the ones that the Tories brought in a few years ago ?
equal the difference is the Tories saw what harm night charges & higher parking charges did so scrapped night timer charges & lowered daytime charges will Labour admit they've got it wrong?
Are you speaking in a foreign language ??
.
Anyway if i have translated your pidgeon English correctly ..... You are wrong ....... Again.
.
Oh and the Tories brought in Sunday parking charges
.
Found out what LOL stands for yet .... Try this one .... your comments make me LMAO
.
I couldn't give a **** what it means,
But you are so predictable in insulting people It's getting boring.
No matter what you say & no matter how you try to deflect the flack away from your Labour colleagues Labour has made a mess of this as they did with the cycle way & all traffic works in the city.
They never told the electorate about their plans to charge residents for parking in residential only parking zones even though it was part of their manifesto.
Labour is quite happy to build or allow blocks of flats in the city centre & now LABOUR are punishing the tenants of those flats with parking charges?
If you think that's fair & if you can't accept the Tories saw what they did was wrong & then scrapped it there's little or no hope for you.
If you are indeed a councillor I really feel for the residents of this city!
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]StevenGalton[/bold] wrote: My biggest issue is the lack of illumination on some signs/machines - they just aren't visible enough to be able to see what should be paid and when, luckily I know about the charges, but I can easily see how people are being caught out. Also interesting pledge on where the money will be spent as some of the money is ring fenced and can't be spent how Cllr Rayment suggested. Also hate it when the excuse other local authorities charge so we should also - well some of these authorities froze council tax, yet Labour Southampton didn't follow them on this despite government money available to do so...[/p][/quote]Obviously illumination wasnt your biggest issue ...... . How do these night time parking charges compare to the ones that the Tories brought in a few years ago ?[/p][/quote]equal the difference is the Tories saw what harm night charges & higher parking charges did so scrapped night timer charges & lowered daytime charges will Labour admit they've got it wrong?[/p][/quote]Are you speaking in a foreign language ?? . Anyway if i have translated your pidgeon English correctly ..... You are wrong ....... Again. . Oh and the Tories brought in Sunday parking charges . Found out what LOL stands for yet .... Try this one .... your comments make me LMAO .[/p][/quote]I couldn't give a **** what it means, But you are so predictable in insulting people It's getting boring. No matter what you say & no matter how you try to deflect the flack away from your Labour colleagues Labour has made a mess of this as they did with the cycle way & all traffic works in the city. They never told the electorate about their plans to charge residents for parking in residential only parking zones even though it was part of their manifesto. Labour is quite happy to build or allow blocks of flats in the city centre & now LABOUR are punishing the tenants of those flats with parking charges? If you think that's fair & if you can't accept the Tories saw what they did was wrong & then scrapped it there's little or no hope for you. If you are indeed a councillor I really feel for the residents of this city! loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:10pm Thu 20 Mar 14

loosehead says...

loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
StevenGalton wrote:
My biggest issue is the lack of illumination on some signs/machines - they just aren't visible enough to be able to see what should be paid and when, luckily I know about the charges, but I can easily see how people are being caught out.

Also interesting pledge on where the money will be spent as some of the money is ring fenced and can't be spent how Cllr Rayment suggested.

Also hate it when the excuse other local authorities charge so we should also - well some of these authorities froze council tax, yet Labour Southampton didn't follow them on this despite government money available to do so...
Obviously illumination wasnt your biggest issue ......
.
How do these night time parking charges compare to the ones that the Tories brought in a few years ago ?
equal the difference is the Tories saw what harm night charges & higher parking charges did so scrapped night timer charges & lowered daytime charges will Labour admit they've got it wrong?
Are you speaking in a foreign language ??
.
Anyway if i have translated your pidgeon English correctly ..... You are wrong ....... Again.
.
Oh and the Tories brought in Sunday parking charges
.
Found out what LOL stands for yet .... Try this one .... your comments make me LMAO
.
I couldn't give a **** what it means,
But you are so predictable in insulting people It's getting boring.
No matter what you say & no matter how you try to deflect the flack away from your Labour colleagues Labour has made a mess of this as they did with the cycle way & all traffic works in the city.
They never told the electorate about their plans to charge residents for parking in residential only parking zones even though it was part of their manifesto.
Labour is quite happy to build or allow blocks of flats in the city centre & now LABOUR are punishing the tenants of those flats with parking charges?
If you think that's fair & if you can't accept the Tories saw what they did was wrong & then scrapped it there's little or no hope for you.
If you are indeed a councillor I really feel for the residents of this city!
Why was dam with an n blocked?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]StevenGalton[/bold] wrote: My biggest issue is the lack of illumination on some signs/machines - they just aren't visible enough to be able to see what should be paid and when, luckily I know about the charges, but I can easily see how people are being caught out. Also interesting pledge on where the money will be spent as some of the money is ring fenced and can't be spent how Cllr Rayment suggested. Also hate it when the excuse other local authorities charge so we should also - well some of these authorities froze council tax, yet Labour Southampton didn't follow them on this despite government money available to do so...[/p][/quote]Obviously illumination wasnt your biggest issue ...... . How do these night time parking charges compare to the ones that the Tories brought in a few years ago ?[/p][/quote]equal the difference is the Tories saw what harm night charges & higher parking charges did so scrapped night timer charges & lowered daytime charges will Labour admit they've got it wrong?[/p][/quote]Are you speaking in a foreign language ?? . Anyway if i have translated your pidgeon English correctly ..... You are wrong ....... Again. . Oh and the Tories brought in Sunday parking charges . Found out what LOL stands for yet .... Try this one .... your comments make me LMAO .[/p][/quote]I couldn't give a **** what it means, But you are so predictable in insulting people It's getting boring. No matter what you say & no matter how you try to deflect the flack away from your Labour colleagues Labour has made a mess of this as they did with the cycle way & all traffic works in the city. They never told the electorate about their plans to charge residents for parking in residential only parking zones even though it was part of their manifesto. Labour is quite happy to build or allow blocks of flats in the city centre & now LABOUR are punishing the tenants of those flats with parking charges? If you think that's fair & if you can't accept the Tories saw what they did was wrong & then scrapped it there's little or no hope for you. If you are indeed a councillor I really feel for the residents of this city![/p][/quote]Why was dam with an n blocked? loosehead
  • Score: -1

9:15pm Thu 20 Mar 14

loosehead says...

KSO16R wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
StevenGalton wrote:
My biggest issue is the lack of illumination on some signs/machines - they just aren't visible enough to be able to see what should be paid and when, luckily I know about the charges, but I can easily see how people are being caught out.

Also interesting pledge on where the money will be spent as some of the money is ring fenced and can't be spent how Cllr Rayment suggested.

Also hate it when the excuse other local authorities charge so we should also - well some of these authorities froze council tax, yet Labour Southampton didn't follow them on this despite government money available to do so...
Obviously illumination wasnt your biggest issue ......
.
How do these night time parking charges compare to the ones that the Tories brought in a few years ago ?
equal the difference is the Tories saw what harm night charges & higher parking charges did so scrapped night timer charges & lowered daytime charges will Labour admit they've got it wrong?
This will not adversely affect the businesses in town as much as is being suggested but the charge will, hopefully, help the residents of Southampton
So when Ed Milliband goes on about the cost of living crisis this is okay for a Labour council to screw even more money out of it's residents then?
[quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]StevenGalton[/bold] wrote: My biggest issue is the lack of illumination on some signs/machines - they just aren't visible enough to be able to see what should be paid and when, luckily I know about the charges, but I can easily see how people are being caught out. Also interesting pledge on where the money will be spent as some of the money is ring fenced and can't be spent how Cllr Rayment suggested. Also hate it when the excuse other local authorities charge so we should also - well some of these authorities froze council tax, yet Labour Southampton didn't follow them on this despite government money available to do so...[/p][/quote]Obviously illumination wasnt your biggest issue ...... . How do these night time parking charges compare to the ones that the Tories brought in a few years ago ?[/p][/quote]equal the difference is the Tories saw what harm night charges & higher parking charges did so scrapped night timer charges & lowered daytime charges will Labour admit they've got it wrong?[/p][/quote]This will not adversely affect the businesses in town as much as is being suggested but the charge will, hopefully, help the residents of Southampton[/p][/quote]So when Ed Milliband goes on about the cost of living crisis this is okay for a Labour council to screw even more money out of it's residents then? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:17pm Thu 20 Mar 14

loosehead says...

KSO16R wrote:
loosehead wrote:
So I guess this really shows Labour for what they are, We want a thriving city centre day & night & the jobs it will bring really?
Or should it be it will bring a load of mugs we can either charge to park at night or hit them with fines & then say "OH! we might use this money to fix the roads aren't we doing good"?
They could always get a cab
The other day you called me by my surname so I thought let's all be polite & if this person knows me maybe they could tell me their name so I asked you your name but you haven't given it why not?
[quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: So I guess this really shows Labour for what they are, We want a thriving city centre day & night & the jobs it will bring really? Or should it be it will bring a load of mugs we can either charge to park at night or hit them with fines & then say "OH! we might use this money to fix the roads aren't we doing good"?[/p][/quote]They could always get a cab[/p][/quote]The other day you called me by my surname so I thought let's all be polite & if this person knows me maybe they could tell me their name so I asked you your name but you haven't given it why not? loosehead
  • Score: -1

9:31pm Thu 20 Mar 14

KSO16R says...

loosehead wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
loosehead wrote:
So I guess this really shows Labour for what they are, We want a thriving city centre day & night & the jobs it will bring really?
Or should it be it will bring a load of mugs we can either charge to park at night or hit them with fines & then say "OH! we might use this money to fix the roads aren't we doing good"?
They could always get a cab
The other day you called me by my surname so I thought let's all be polite & if this person knows me maybe they could tell me their name so I asked you your name but you haven't given it why not?
I never used your surname i used the first
letter. I would never use anyones name on these types of forum. I was very surprised when i realised who you were. You write too much personal information in order to back up your view point. Think about it.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: So I guess this really shows Labour for what they are, We want a thriving city centre day & night & the jobs it will bring really? Or should it be it will bring a load of mugs we can either charge to park at night or hit them with fines & then say "OH! we might use this money to fix the roads aren't we doing good"?[/p][/quote]They could always get a cab[/p][/quote]The other day you called me by my surname so I thought let's all be polite & if this person knows me maybe they could tell me their name so I asked you your name but you haven't given it why not?[/p][/quote]I never used your surname i used the first letter. I would never use anyones name on these types of forum. I was very surprised when i realised who you were. You write too much personal information in order to back up your view point. Think about it. KSO16R
  • Score: 1

9:32pm Thu 20 Mar 14

loosehead says...

KSO16R wrote:
loosehead wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
loosehead wrote:
So I guess this really shows Labour for what they are, We want a thriving city centre day & night & the jobs it will bring really?
Or should it be it will bring a load of mugs we can either charge to park at night or hit them with fines & then say "OH! we might use this money to fix the roads aren't we doing good"?
They could always get a cab
The other day you called me by my surname so I thought let's all be polite & if this person knows me maybe they could tell me their name so I asked you your name but you haven't given it why not?
I never used your surname i used the first
letter. I would never use anyones name on these types of forum. I was very surprised when i realised who you were. You write too much personal information in order to back up your view point. Think about it.
okay but do i know you personally?
[quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: So I guess this really shows Labour for what they are, We want a thriving city centre day & night & the jobs it will bring really? Or should it be it will bring a load of mugs we can either charge to park at night or hit them with fines & then say "OH! we might use this money to fix the roads aren't we doing good"?[/p][/quote]They could always get a cab[/p][/quote]The other day you called me by my surname so I thought let's all be polite & if this person knows me maybe they could tell me their name so I asked you your name but you haven't given it why not?[/p][/quote]I never used your surname i used the first letter. I would never use anyones name on these types of forum. I was very surprised when i realised who you were. You write too much personal information in order to back up your view point. Think about it.[/p][/quote]okay but do i know you personally? loosehead
  • Score: -1

9:32pm Thu 20 Mar 14

loosehead says...

KSO16R wrote:
loosehead wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
loosehead wrote:
So I guess this really shows Labour for what they are, We want a thriving city centre day & night & the jobs it will bring really?
Or should it be it will bring a load of mugs we can either charge to park at night or hit them with fines & then say "OH! we might use this money to fix the roads aren't we doing good"?
They could always get a cab
The other day you called me by my surname so I thought let's all be polite & if this person knows me maybe they could tell me their name so I asked you your name but you haven't given it why not?
I never used your surname i used the first
letter. I would never use anyones name on these types of forum. I was very surprised when i realised who you were. You write too much personal information in order to back up your view point. Think about it.
okay but do i know you personally?
[quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: So I guess this really shows Labour for what they are, We want a thriving city centre day & night & the jobs it will bring really? Or should it be it will bring a load of mugs we can either charge to park at night or hit them with fines & then say "OH! we might use this money to fix the roads aren't we doing good"?[/p][/quote]They could always get a cab[/p][/quote]The other day you called me by my surname so I thought let's all be polite & if this person knows me maybe they could tell me their name so I asked you your name but you haven't given it why not?[/p][/quote]I never used your surname i used the first letter. I would never use anyones name on these types of forum. I was very surprised when i realised who you were. You write too much personal information in order to back up your view point. Think about it.[/p][/quote]okay but do i know you personally? loosehead
  • Score: -1

9:35pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Kouros says...

When the West Quay development first opened they also stopped the free parking on a Sunday. Because of that, to this day I have never shopped in the West Quays and now I won't go into town at night either. There's plenty of shops, pubs and restaurants elsewhere without having to pay to park a car in the street. I'd like to go to Ikea too but I am not going to pay to use their car park. I see that the first three hours are free if you spend over £20 but I am not going to be blackmailed into buying something to avoid their parking charges. IMHO they should have sited their store out of the town centre with free parking.
When the West Quay development first opened they also stopped the free parking on a Sunday. Because of that, to this day I have never shopped in the West Quays and now I won't go into town at night either. There's plenty of shops, pubs and restaurants elsewhere without having to pay to park a car in the street. I'd like to go to Ikea too but I am not going to pay to use their car park. I see that the first three hours are free if you spend over £20 but I am not going to be blackmailed into buying something to avoid their parking charges. IMHO they should have sited their store out of the town centre with free parking. Kouros
  • Score: 1

9:40pm Thu 20 Mar 14

KSO16R says...

Kouros wrote:
When the West Quay development first opened they also stopped the free parking on a Sunday. Because of that, to this day I have never shopped in the West Quays and now I won't go into town at night either. There's plenty of shops, pubs and restaurants elsewhere without having to pay to park a car in the street. I'd like to go to Ikea too but I am not going to pay to use their car park. I see that the first three hours are free if you spend over £20 but I am not going to be blackmailed into buying something to avoid their parking charges. IMHO they should have sited their store out of the town centre with free parking.
Who is blackmailing who?
[quote][p][bold]Kouros[/bold] wrote: When the West Quay development first opened they also stopped the free parking on a Sunday. Because of that, to this day I have never shopped in the West Quays and now I won't go into town at night either. There's plenty of shops, pubs and restaurants elsewhere without having to pay to park a car in the street. I'd like to go to Ikea too but I am not going to pay to use their car park. I see that the first three hours are free if you spend over £20 but I am not going to be blackmailed into buying something to avoid their parking charges. IMHO they should have sited their store out of the town centre with free parking.[/p][/quote]Who is blackmailing who? KSO16R
  • Score: 0

9:45pm Thu 20 Mar 14

KSO16R says...

loosehead wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
loosehead wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
loosehead wrote:
So I guess this really shows Labour for what they are, We want a thriving city centre day & night & the jobs it will bring really?
Or should it be it will bring a load of mugs we can either charge to park at night or hit them with fines & then say "OH! we might use this money to fix the roads aren't we doing good"?
They could always get a cab
The other day you called me by my surname so I thought let's all be polite & if this person knows me maybe they could tell me their name so I asked you your name but you haven't given it why not?
I never used your surname i used the first
letter. I would never use anyones name on these types of forum. I was very surprised when i realised who you were. You write too much personal information in order to back up your view point. Think about it.
okay but do i know you personally?
Yes but its been a few years since we spoke.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: So I guess this really shows Labour for what they are, We want a thriving city centre day & night & the jobs it will bring really? Or should it be it will bring a load of mugs we can either charge to park at night or hit them with fines & then say "OH! we might use this money to fix the roads aren't we doing good"?[/p][/quote]They could always get a cab[/p][/quote]The other day you called me by my surname so I thought let's all be polite & if this person knows me maybe they could tell me their name so I asked you your name but you haven't given it why not?[/p][/quote]I never used your surname i used the first letter. I would never use anyones name on these types of forum. I was very surprised when i realised who you were. You write too much personal information in order to back up your view point. Think about it.[/p][/quote]okay but do i know you personally?[/p][/quote]Yes but its been a few years since we spoke. KSO16R
  • Score: 0

11:24pm Thu 20 Mar 14

This_DAMN_Town says...

charrlee wrote:
If cyclists wore identity jackets where a registration number was visible to CCTV and the police, and their bikes were registered, a fair bit of money could be made out of them riding on the path, going through red lights, and all the other infringements they get away with at present.
Wow... How did you manage to bring it round to cyclists. Inactive cars to cyclists.

I see hundreds of violations committed by motor vehicles every week, they all have an identity number on the back but nothing is done about them... How would my fellow cyclists be any different? I'd happily report every red light jumping one of them but it wouldn't work.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: If cyclists wore identity jackets where a registration number was visible to CCTV and the police, and their bikes were registered, a fair bit of money could be made out of them riding on the path, going through red lights, and all the other infringements they get away with at present.[/p][/quote]Wow... How did you manage to bring it round to cyclists. Inactive cars to cyclists. I see hundreds of violations committed by motor vehicles every week, they all have an identity number on the back but nothing is done about them... How would my fellow cyclists be any different? I'd happily report every red light jumping one of them but it wouldn't work. This_DAMN_Town
  • Score: 0

12:27am Fri 21 Mar 14

hantsreader says...

Kouros wrote:
When the West Quay development first opened they also stopped the free parking on a Sunday. Because of that, to this day I have never shopped in the West Quays and now I won't go into town at night either. There's plenty of shops, pubs and restaurants elsewhere without having to pay to park a car in the street. I'd like to go to Ikea too but I am not going to pay to use their car park. I see that the first three hours are free if you spend over £20 but I am not going to be blackmailed into buying something to avoid their parking charges. IMHO they should have sited their store out of the town centre with free parking.
I live about half way between Southampton and Bournemouth. It's now easier, and cheaper, to drive to Castle Point than shop in Southampton. I know I'm not alone in making this decision.
[quote][p][bold]Kouros[/bold] wrote: When the West Quay development first opened they also stopped the free parking on a Sunday. Because of that, to this day I have never shopped in the West Quays and now I won't go into town at night either. There's plenty of shops, pubs and restaurants elsewhere without having to pay to park a car in the street. I'd like to go to Ikea too but I am not going to pay to use their car park. I see that the first three hours are free if you spend over £20 but I am not going to be blackmailed into buying something to avoid their parking charges. IMHO they should have sited their store out of the town centre with free parking.[/p][/quote]I live about half way between Southampton and Bournemouth. It's now easier, and cheaper, to drive to Castle Point than shop in Southampton. I know I'm not alone in making this decision. hantsreader
  • Score: -1

12:39am Fri 21 Mar 14

charrlee says...

This_DAMN_Town wrote:
charrlee wrote:
If cyclists wore identity jackets where a registration number was visible to CCTV and the police, and their bikes were registered, a fair bit of money could be made out of them riding on the path, going through red lights, and all the other infringements they get away with at present.
Wow... How did you manage to bring it round to cyclists. Inactive cars to cyclists.

I see hundreds of violations committed by motor vehicles every week, they all have an identity number on the back but nothing is done about them... How would my fellow cyclists be any different? I'd happily report every red light jumping one of them but it wouldn't work.
I have not missed the underlying facetiousness that is the trademark of the peevish cycling fanatic.

This week I have been sickened by the way people like Gingercyclist have been dominating some threads, attempting to parade the virtues of cycling when they contribute nothing to the economy by way of licence fees, etc. If they are going to increase in numbers and take up more space on heavily-crowded roads then they should be subjected to the same restrictions and impositions as other road users.
[quote][p][bold]This_DAMN_Town[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: If cyclists wore identity jackets where a registration number was visible to CCTV and the police, and their bikes were registered, a fair bit of money could be made out of them riding on the path, going through red lights, and all the other infringements they get away with at present.[/p][/quote]Wow... How did you manage to bring it round to cyclists. Inactive cars to cyclists. I see hundreds of violations committed by motor vehicles every week, they all have an identity number on the back but nothing is done about them... How would my fellow cyclists be any different? I'd happily report every red light jumping one of them but it wouldn't work.[/p][/quote]I have not missed the underlying facetiousness that is the trademark of the peevish cycling fanatic. This week I have been sickened by the way people like Gingercyclist have been dominating some threads, attempting to parade the virtues of cycling when they contribute nothing to the economy by way of licence fees, etc. If they are going to increase in numbers and take up more space on heavily-crowded roads then they should be subjected to the same restrictions and impositions as other road users. charrlee
  • Score: 0

6:08am Fri 21 Mar 14

loosehead says...

KSO16R wrote:
loosehead wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
loosehead wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
loosehead wrote:
So I guess this really shows Labour for what they are, We want a thriving city centre day & night & the jobs it will bring really?
Or should it be it will bring a load of mugs we can either charge to park at night or hit them with fines & then say "OH! we might use this money to fix the roads aren't we doing good"?
They could always get a cab
The other day you called me by my surname so I thought let's all be polite & if this person knows me maybe they could tell me their name so I asked you your name but you haven't given it why not?
I never used your surname i used the first
letter. I would never use anyones name on these types of forum. I was very surprised when i realised who you were. You write too much personal information in order to back up your view point. Think about it.
okay but do i know you personally?
Yes but its been a few years since we spoke.
the only reason I've given out personal details is to prove what I'm saying isn't fantasy.
I'm leaving this city very soon so I wish you all the best.
[quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: So I guess this really shows Labour for what they are, We want a thriving city centre day & night & the jobs it will bring really? Or should it be it will bring a load of mugs we can either charge to park at night or hit them with fines & then say "OH! we might use this money to fix the roads aren't we doing good"?[/p][/quote]They could always get a cab[/p][/quote]The other day you called me by my surname so I thought let's all be polite & if this person knows me maybe they could tell me their name so I asked you your name but you haven't given it why not?[/p][/quote]I never used your surname i used the first letter. I would never use anyones name on these types of forum. I was very surprised when i realised who you were. You write too much personal information in order to back up your view point. Think about it.[/p][/quote]okay but do i know you personally?[/p][/quote]Yes but its been a few years since we spoke.[/p][/quote]the only reason I've given out personal details is to prove what I'm saying isn't fantasy. I'm leaving this city very soon so I wish you all the best. loosehead
  • Score: 0

7:40am Fri 21 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

"This week I have been sickened by the way people like Gingercyclist have been dominating some threads, attempting to parade the virtues of cycling when they contribute nothing to the economy by way of licence fees, etc. If they are going to increase in numbers and take up more space on heavily-crowded roads then they should be subjected to the same restrictions and impositions as other road users."
Fallacious. How many cyclists do you know who don't have cars as well? I'm sad to say between myself and my children far more cars than bikes. It's not "contributing to the economy "It's giving money to the State so that Cameron can boast about overseas aid (money for Mercs to foreign dictators) and the DWP can keep increasing the numbers of "father of 6 (welfare) children". Half of that which we pay the State is wasted and I've no doubt this 28 grand will come in as a little part of a redundancy package for some clerk-"Head of Strategic Strategy"- or similar meaningless rubbish, who'll then be re-hired by a neighbouring council
"This week I have been sickened by the way people like Gingercyclist have been dominating some threads, attempting to parade the virtues of cycling when they contribute nothing to the economy by way of licence fees, etc. If they are going to increase in numbers and take up more space on heavily-crowded roads then they should be subjected to the same restrictions and impositions as other road users." Fallacious. How many cyclists do you know who don't have cars as well? I'm sad to say between myself and my children far more cars than bikes. It's not "contributing to the economy "It's giving money to the State so that Cameron can boast about overseas aid (money for Mercs to foreign dictators) and the DWP can keep increasing the numbers of "father of 6 (welfare) children". Half of that which we pay the State is wasted and I've no doubt this 28 grand will come in as a little part of a redundancy package for some clerk-"Head of Strategic Strategy"- or similar meaningless rubbish, who'll then be re-hired by a neighbouring council Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

9:34am Fri 21 Mar 14

Lone Ranger. says...

KSO16R wrote:
loosehead wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
loosehead wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
loosehead wrote:
So I guess this really shows Labour for what they are, We want a thriving city centre day & night & the jobs it will bring really?
Or should it be it will bring a load of mugs we can either charge to park at night or hit them with fines & then say "OH! we might use this money to fix the roads aren't we doing good"?
They could always get a cab
The other day you called me by my surname so I thought let's all be polite & if this person knows me maybe they could tell me their name so I asked you your name but you haven't given it why not?
I never used your surname i used the first
letter. I would never use anyones name on these types of forum. I was very surprised when i realised who you were. You write too much personal information in order to back up your view point. Think about it.
okay but do i know you personally?
Yes but its been a few years since we spoke.
Dont tell him your name ....... thats all he goes on about .... just like a ruddy parrot ....... Its none of his business
[quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: So I guess this really shows Labour for what they are, We want a thriving city centre day & night & the jobs it will bring really? Or should it be it will bring a load of mugs we can either charge to park at night or hit them with fines & then say "OH! we might use this money to fix the roads aren't we doing good"?[/p][/quote]They could always get a cab[/p][/quote]The other day you called me by my surname so I thought let's all be polite & if this person knows me maybe they could tell me their name so I asked you your name but you haven't given it why not?[/p][/quote]I never used your surname i used the first letter. I would never use anyones name on these types of forum. I was very surprised when i realised who you were. You write too much personal information in order to back up your view point. Think about it.[/p][/quote]okay but do i know you personally?[/p][/quote]Yes but its been a few years since we spoke.[/p][/quote]Dont tell him your name ....... thats all he goes on about .... just like a ruddy parrot ....... Its none of his business Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

9:59am Fri 21 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Dai Rear wrote:
"This week I have been sickened by the way people like Gingercyclist have been dominating some threads, attempting to parade the virtues of cycling when they contribute nothing to the economy by way of licence fees, etc. If they are going to increase in numbers and take up more space on heavily-crowded roads then they should be subjected to the same restrictions and impositions as other road users."
Fallacious. How many cyclists do you know who don't have cars as well? I'm sad to say between myself and my children far more cars than bikes. It's not "contributing to the economy "It's giving money to the State so that Cameron can boast about overseas aid (money for Mercs to foreign dictators) and the DWP can keep increasing the numbers of "father of 6 (welfare) children". Half of that which we pay the State is wasted and I've no doubt this 28 grand will come in as a little part of a redundancy package for some clerk-"Head of Strategic Strategy"- or similar meaningless rubbish, who'll then be re-hired by a neighbouring council
What a load of irrelevant, blathering rhetoric you present here.

Please answer this question : What/where/how do cyclists contribute to the economy?

Your answer should start with a statement : They contribute to the economy by...........etc. It should not start with rhetoric, and a host of unrelated questions and comments.

My contention is that a bicycle is good for exercise and leisure ( I do have one !), it is a non-polluting mode of transport, but it is limited as regards to the transportation of goods. If cyclists want to use the roads, they must pay for that privilege like any other road user. And they must be identifiable, like any other road user, and thus liable for fines for infringements. The article above makes it clear that only motorised road users can be traced and are thus eligible for fines for infringements.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: "This week I have been sickened by the way people like Gingercyclist have been dominating some threads, attempting to parade the virtues of cycling when they contribute nothing to the economy by way of licence fees, etc. If they are going to increase in numbers and take up more space on heavily-crowded roads then they should be subjected to the same restrictions and impositions as other road users." Fallacious. How many cyclists do you know who don't have cars as well? I'm sad to say between myself and my children far more cars than bikes. It's not "contributing to the economy "It's giving money to the State so that Cameron can boast about overseas aid (money for Mercs to foreign dictators) and the DWP can keep increasing the numbers of "father of 6 (welfare) children". Half of that which we pay the State is wasted and I've no doubt this 28 grand will come in as a little part of a redundancy package for some clerk-"Head of Strategic Strategy"- or similar meaningless rubbish, who'll then be re-hired by a neighbouring council[/p][/quote]What a load of irrelevant, blathering rhetoric you present here. Please answer this question : What/where/how do cyclists contribute to the economy? Your answer should start with a statement : They contribute to the economy by...........etc. It should not start with rhetoric, and a host of unrelated questions and comments. My contention is that a bicycle is good for exercise and leisure ( I do have one !), it is a non-polluting mode of transport, but it is limited as regards to the transportation of goods. If cyclists want to use the roads, they must pay for that privilege like any other road user. And they must be identifiable, like any other road user, and thus liable for fines for infringements. The article above makes it clear that only motorised road users can be traced and are thus eligible for fines for infringements. charrlee
  • Score: 0

10:38am Fri 21 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

charrlee wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
"This week I have been sickened by the way people like Gingercyclist have been dominating some threads, attempting to parade the virtues of cycling when they contribute nothing to the economy by way of licence fees, etc. If they are going to increase in numbers and take up more space on heavily-crowded roads then they should be subjected to the same restrictions and impositions as other road users."
Fallacious. How many cyclists do you know who don't have cars as well? I'm sad to say between myself and my children far more cars than bikes. It's not "contributing to the economy "It's giving money to the State so that Cameron can boast about overseas aid (money for Mercs to foreign dictators) and the DWP can keep increasing the numbers of "father of 6 (welfare) children". Half of that which we pay the State is wasted and I've no doubt this 28 grand will come in as a little part of a redundancy package for some clerk-"Head of Strategic Strategy"- or similar meaningless rubbish, who'll then be re-hired by a neighbouring council
What a load of irrelevant, blathering rhetoric you present here.

Please answer this question : What/where/how do cyclists contribute to the economy?

Your answer should start with a statement : They contribute to the economy by...........etc. It should not start with rhetoric, and a host of unrelated questions and comments.

My contention is that a bicycle is good for exercise and leisure ( I do have one !), it is a non-polluting mode of transport, but it is limited as regards to the transportation of goods. If cyclists want to use the roads, they must pay for that privilege like any other road user. And they must be identifiable, like any other road user, and thus liable for fines for infringements. The article above makes it clear that only motorised road users can be traced and are thus eligible for fines for infringements.
OK. It's very rare for a an adult with a cycle not to have a car. If you have a car you pay fuel tax, insurance tax, road tax, Value Added tax on servicing, i.e. you pay about 14 times more than is spent upon the roads the "privilege" of using which you are paying for. I should have thought it was hardly a "privilege"- a private law, but let that pass. I have 2 bicycles. I have one car. What I pay the State to put the car on the road covers any wear and tear caused by the bikes, even though I use them for over an hour a day and the car far less.
As for "infringements"-I ride on the pavement if there are no pedestrians because it's safer all round.-- if I "infringe" in other ways I am likely to be a casualty. My car would go at nearly 140mph if I was that daft and if I "infringed" in that, which I tend to avoid, I expect more people than just me would suffer. So, the status quo as regards bikes is fine, except for the **** who insist on riding 2 or 3 abreast through the Forest. But of course that's not an "infringe"
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: "This week I have been sickened by the way people like Gingercyclist have been dominating some threads, attempting to parade the virtues of cycling when they contribute nothing to the economy by way of licence fees, etc. If they are going to increase in numbers and take up more space on heavily-crowded roads then they should be subjected to the same restrictions and impositions as other road users." Fallacious. How many cyclists do you know who don't have cars as well? I'm sad to say between myself and my children far more cars than bikes. It's not "contributing to the economy "It's giving money to the State so that Cameron can boast about overseas aid (money for Mercs to foreign dictators) and the DWP can keep increasing the numbers of "father of 6 (welfare) children". Half of that which we pay the State is wasted and I've no doubt this 28 grand will come in as a little part of a redundancy package for some clerk-"Head of Strategic Strategy"- or similar meaningless rubbish, who'll then be re-hired by a neighbouring council[/p][/quote]What a load of irrelevant, blathering rhetoric you present here. Please answer this question : What/where/how do cyclists contribute to the economy? Your answer should start with a statement : They contribute to the economy by...........etc. It should not start with rhetoric, and a host of unrelated questions and comments. My contention is that a bicycle is good for exercise and leisure ( I do have one !), it is a non-polluting mode of transport, but it is limited as regards to the transportation of goods. If cyclists want to use the roads, they must pay for that privilege like any other road user. And they must be identifiable, like any other road user, and thus liable for fines for infringements. The article above makes it clear that only motorised road users can be traced and are thus eligible for fines for infringements.[/p][/quote]OK. It's very rare for a an adult with a cycle not to have a car. If you have a car you pay fuel tax, insurance tax, road tax, Value Added tax on servicing, i.e. you pay about 14 times more than is spent upon the roads the "privilege" of using which you are paying for. I should have thought it was hardly a "privilege"- a private law, but let that pass. I have 2 bicycles. I have one car. What I pay the State to put the car on the road covers any wear and tear caused by the bikes, even though I use them for over an hour a day and the car far less. As for "infringements"-I ride on the pavement if there are no pedestrians because it's safer all round.-- if I "infringe" in other ways I am likely to be a casualty. My car would go at nearly 140mph if I was that daft and if I "infringed" in that, which I tend to avoid, I expect more people than just me would suffer. So, the status quo as regards bikes is fine, except for the **** who insist on riding 2 or 3 abreast through the Forest. But of course that's not an "infringe" Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

11:08am Fri 21 Mar 14

loosehead says...

charrlee wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
"This week I have been sickened by the way people like Gingercyclist have been dominating some threads, attempting to parade the virtues of cycling when they contribute nothing to the economy by way of licence fees, etc. If they are going to increase in numbers and take up more space on heavily-crowded roads then they should be subjected to the same restrictions and impositions as other road users."
Fallacious. How many cyclists do you know who don't have cars as well? I'm sad to say between myself and my children far more cars than bikes. It's not "contributing to the economy "It's giving money to the State so that Cameron can boast about overseas aid (money for Mercs to foreign dictators) and the DWP can keep increasing the numbers of "father of 6 (welfare) children". Half of that which we pay the State is wasted and I've no doubt this 28 grand will come in as a little part of a redundancy package for some clerk-"Head of Strategic Strategy"- or similar meaningless rubbish, who'll then be re-hired by a neighbouring council
What a load of irrelevant, blathering rhetoric you present here.

Please answer this question : What/where/how do cyclists contribute to the economy?

Your answer should start with a statement : They contribute to the economy by...........etc. It should not start with rhetoric, and a host of unrelated questions and comments.

My contention is that a bicycle is good for exercise and leisure ( I do have one !), it is a non-polluting mode of transport, but it is limited as regards to the transportation of goods. If cyclists want to use the roads, they must pay for that privilege like any other road user. And they must be identifiable, like any other road user, and thus liable for fines for infringements. The article above makes it clear that only motorised road users can be traced and are thus eligible for fines for infringements.
How many roads have to be resurfaced down to excessive cyclist use?
How many seriously injured people have to go to hospital costing the NHS money through being hit by cyclists?
How many people have avoided or prolonged the event of heart disease by riding a bike & keeping relatively healthy so again saving the NHS money?
This is about a wrong tax on car drivers so why deflect it on to a us & them scenario (bikes & cars)?
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: "This week I have been sickened by the way people like Gingercyclist have been dominating some threads, attempting to parade the virtues of cycling when they contribute nothing to the economy by way of licence fees, etc. If they are going to increase in numbers and take up more space on heavily-crowded roads then they should be subjected to the same restrictions and impositions as other road users." Fallacious. How many cyclists do you know who don't have cars as well? I'm sad to say between myself and my children far more cars than bikes. It's not "contributing to the economy "It's giving money to the State so that Cameron can boast about overseas aid (money for Mercs to foreign dictators) and the DWP can keep increasing the numbers of "father of 6 (welfare) children". Half of that which we pay the State is wasted and I've no doubt this 28 grand will come in as a little part of a redundancy package for some clerk-"Head of Strategic Strategy"- or similar meaningless rubbish, who'll then be re-hired by a neighbouring council[/p][/quote]What a load of irrelevant, blathering rhetoric you present here. Please answer this question : What/where/how do cyclists contribute to the economy? Your answer should start with a statement : They contribute to the economy by...........etc. It should not start with rhetoric, and a host of unrelated questions and comments. My contention is that a bicycle is good for exercise and leisure ( I do have one !), it is a non-polluting mode of transport, but it is limited as regards to the transportation of goods. If cyclists want to use the roads, they must pay for that privilege like any other road user. And they must be identifiable, like any other road user, and thus liable for fines for infringements. The article above makes it clear that only motorised road users can be traced and are thus eligible for fines for infringements.[/p][/quote]How many roads have to be resurfaced down to excessive cyclist use? How many seriously injured people have to go to hospital costing the NHS money through being hit by cyclists? How many people have avoided or prolonged the event of heart disease by riding a bike & keeping relatively healthy so again saving the NHS money? This is about a wrong tax on car drivers so why deflect it on to a us & them scenario (bikes & cars)? loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:16pm Fri 21 Mar 14

RomseyKeith says...

manic75 wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
Lost Generation wrote: I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives. After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.
How much do you spend on fuel?
It's the principle of the matter, not the spend. I'll happily pay more on fuel to dine further away as quite simply I want to hurt Southampton by no longer dining there. Point is the message Southampton is sending to potential customers like me. I'm not struggling for money, i'm not rich either. When I decide to go out in an evening, I don't deliberate about how much fuel I'll use (perhaps some do but I don't). Romsey and Winchester are not that far away, so even if its further, its insignificant. I have a democratic right to support causes I believe in. I don't believe in Southampton's cause where they want to use motorists as a cash cow. Quite simply, they don't want my business. I will support towns and businesses that do.
For people like myself, who already live in Romsey (and so would already have to pay fuel to get into Southampton, then an additional parking charge on top) it encourages us to stay away. Southampton is a local town, for local people. They don't want strangers to encourage a thriving night life.
[quote][p][bold]manic75[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lost Generation[/bold] wrote: I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives. After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.[/p][/quote]How much do you spend on fuel?[/p][/quote]It's the principle of the matter, not the spend. I'll happily pay more on fuel to dine further away as quite simply I want to hurt Southampton by no longer dining there. Point is the message Southampton is sending to potential customers like me. I'm not struggling for money, i'm not rich either. When I decide to go out in an evening, I don't deliberate about how much fuel I'll use (perhaps some do but I don't). Romsey and Winchester are not that far away, so even if its further, its insignificant. I have a democratic right to support causes I believe in. I don't believe in Southampton's cause where they want to use motorists as a cash cow. Quite simply, they don't want my business. I will support towns and businesses that do.[/p][/quote]For people like myself, who already live in Romsey (and so would already have to pay fuel to get into Southampton, then an additional parking charge on top) it encourages us to stay away. Southampton is a local town, for local people. They don't want strangers to encourage a thriving night life. RomseyKeith
  • Score: 0

1:39pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

Dai Rear wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
"This week I have been sickened by the way people like Gingercyclist have been dominating some threads, attempting to parade the virtues of cycling when they contribute nothing to the economy by way of licence fees, etc. If they are going to increase in numbers and take up more space on heavily-crowded roads then they should be subjected to the same restrictions and impositions as other road users."
Fallacious. How many cyclists do you know who don't have cars as well? I'm sad to say between myself and my children far more cars than bikes. It's not "contributing to the economy "It's giving money to the State so that Cameron can boast about overseas aid (money for Mercs to foreign dictators) and the DWP can keep increasing the numbers of "father of 6 (welfare) children". Half of that which we pay the State is wasted and I've no doubt this 28 grand will come in as a little part of a redundancy package for some clerk-"Head of Strategic Strategy"- or similar meaningless rubbish, who'll then be re-hired by a neighbouring council
What a load of irrelevant, blathering rhetoric you present here.

Please answer this question : What/where/how do cyclists contribute to the economy?

Your answer should start with a statement : They contribute to the economy by...........etc. It should not start with rhetoric, and a host of unrelated questions and comments.

My contention is that a bicycle is good for exercise and leisure ( I do have one !), it is a non-polluting mode of transport, but it is limited as regards to the transportation of goods. If cyclists want to use the roads, they must pay for that privilege like any other road user. And they must be identifiable, like any other road user, and thus liable for fines for infringements. The article above makes it clear that only motorised road users can be traced and are thus eligible for fines for infringements.
OK. It's very rare for a an adult with a cycle not to have a car. If you have a car you pay fuel tax, insurance tax, road tax, Value Added tax on servicing, i.e. you pay about 14 times more than is spent upon the roads the "privilege" of using which you are paying for. I should have thought it was hardly a "privilege"- a private law, but let that pass. I have 2 bicycles. I have one car. What I pay the State to put the car on the road covers any wear and tear caused by the bikes, even though I use them for over an hour a day and the car far less.
As for "infringements"-I ride on the pavement if there are no pedestrians because it's safer all round.-- if I "infringe" in other ways I am likely to be a casualty. My car would go at nearly 140mph if I was that daft and if I "infringed" in that, which I tend to avoid, I expect more people than just me would suffer. So, the status quo as regards bikes is fine, except for the **** who insist on riding 2 or 3 abreast through the Forest. But of course that's not an "infringe"
The "Echo" computer thinks the word I typed, an equine similar to a donkey, is a rude word for "bottom" I assume it was manufactured by the company in charge of security at Kuala Lumpur Airport.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: "This week I have been sickened by the way people like Gingercyclist have been dominating some threads, attempting to parade the virtues of cycling when they contribute nothing to the economy by way of licence fees, etc. If they are going to increase in numbers and take up more space on heavily-crowded roads then they should be subjected to the same restrictions and impositions as other road users." Fallacious. How many cyclists do you know who don't have cars as well? I'm sad to say between myself and my children far more cars than bikes. It's not "contributing to the economy "It's giving money to the State so that Cameron can boast about overseas aid (money for Mercs to foreign dictators) and the DWP can keep increasing the numbers of "father of 6 (welfare) children". Half of that which we pay the State is wasted and I've no doubt this 28 grand will come in as a little part of a redundancy package for some clerk-"Head of Strategic Strategy"- or similar meaningless rubbish, who'll then be re-hired by a neighbouring council[/p][/quote]What a load of irrelevant, blathering rhetoric you present here. Please answer this question : What/where/how do cyclists contribute to the economy? Your answer should start with a statement : They contribute to the economy by...........etc. It should not start with rhetoric, and a host of unrelated questions and comments. My contention is that a bicycle is good for exercise and leisure ( I do have one !), it is a non-polluting mode of transport, but it is limited as regards to the transportation of goods. If cyclists want to use the roads, they must pay for that privilege like any other road user. And they must be identifiable, like any other road user, and thus liable for fines for infringements. The article above makes it clear that only motorised road users can be traced and are thus eligible for fines for infringements.[/p][/quote]OK. It's very rare for a an adult with a cycle not to have a car. If you have a car you pay fuel tax, insurance tax, road tax, Value Added tax on servicing, i.e. you pay about 14 times more than is spent upon the roads the "privilege" of using which you are paying for. I should have thought it was hardly a "privilege"- a private law, but let that pass. I have 2 bicycles. I have one car. What I pay the State to put the car on the road covers any wear and tear caused by the bikes, even though I use them for over an hour a day and the car far less. As for "infringements"-I ride on the pavement if there are no pedestrians because it's safer all round.-- if I "infringe" in other ways I am likely to be a casualty. My car would go at nearly 140mph if I was that daft and if I "infringed" in that, which I tend to avoid, I expect more people than just me would suffer. So, the status quo as regards bikes is fine, except for the **** who insist on riding 2 or 3 abreast through the Forest. But of course that's not an "infringe"[/p][/quote]The "Echo" computer thinks the word I typed, an equine similar to a donkey, is a rude word for "bottom" I assume it was manufactured by the company in charge of security at Kuala Lumpur Airport. Dai Rear
  • Score: 1

2:17pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Lone Ranger. says...

RomseyKeith wrote:
manic75 wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
Lost Generation wrote: I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives. After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.
How much do you spend on fuel?
It's the principle of the matter, not the spend. I'll happily pay more on fuel to dine further away as quite simply I want to hurt Southampton by no longer dining there. Point is the message Southampton is sending to potential customers like me. I'm not struggling for money, i'm not rich either. When I decide to go out in an evening, I don't deliberate about how much fuel I'll use (perhaps some do but I don't). Romsey and Winchester are not that far away, so even if its further, its insignificant. I have a democratic right to support causes I believe in. I don't believe in Southampton's cause where they want to use motorists as a cash cow. Quite simply, they don't want my business. I will support towns and businesses that do.
For people like myself, who already live in Romsey (and so would already have to pay fuel to get into Southampton, then an additional parking charge on top) it encourages us to stay away. Southampton is a local town, for local people. They don't want strangers to encourage a thriving night life.
For the sake of £2 you cut off your nose to spite your face.
.
Anyone would think that it a weeks pay the way that some go on.
.
[quote][p][bold]RomseyKeith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]manic75[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lost Generation[/bold] wrote: I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives. After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.[/p][/quote]How much do you spend on fuel?[/p][/quote]It's the principle of the matter, not the spend. I'll happily pay more on fuel to dine further away as quite simply I want to hurt Southampton by no longer dining there. Point is the message Southampton is sending to potential customers like me. I'm not struggling for money, i'm not rich either. When I decide to go out in an evening, I don't deliberate about how much fuel I'll use (perhaps some do but I don't). Romsey and Winchester are not that far away, so even if its further, its insignificant. I have a democratic right to support causes I believe in. I don't believe in Southampton's cause where they want to use motorists as a cash cow. Quite simply, they don't want my business. I will support towns and businesses that do.[/p][/quote]For people like myself, who already live in Romsey (and so would already have to pay fuel to get into Southampton, then an additional parking charge on top) it encourages us to stay away. Southampton is a local town, for local people. They don't want strangers to encourage a thriving night life.[/p][/quote]For the sake of £2 you cut off your nose to spite your face. . Anyone would think that it a weeks pay the way that some go on. . Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 1

3:08pm Fri 21 Mar 14

loosehead says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
RomseyKeith wrote:
manic75 wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
Lost Generation wrote: I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives. After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.
How much do you spend on fuel?
It's the principle of the matter, not the spend. I'll happily pay more on fuel to dine further away as quite simply I want to hurt Southampton by no longer dining there. Point is the message Southampton is sending to potential customers like me. I'm not struggling for money, i'm not rich either. When I decide to go out in an evening, I don't deliberate about how much fuel I'll use (perhaps some do but I don't). Romsey and Winchester are not that far away, so even if its further, its insignificant. I have a democratic right to support causes I believe in. I don't believe in Southampton's cause where they want to use motorists as a cash cow. Quite simply, they don't want my business. I will support towns and businesses that do.
For people like myself, who already live in Romsey (and so would already have to pay fuel to get into Southampton, then an additional parking charge on top) it encourages us to stay away. Southampton is a local town, for local people. They don't want strangers to encourage a thriving night life.
For the sake of £2 you cut off your nose to spite your face.
.
Anyone would think that it a weeks pay the way that some go on.
.
Exactly what did you say when the Tory council did this previously?
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RomseyKeith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]manic75[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lost Generation[/bold] wrote: I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives. After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.[/p][/quote]How much do you spend on fuel?[/p][/quote]It's the principle of the matter, not the spend. I'll happily pay more on fuel to dine further away as quite simply I want to hurt Southampton by no longer dining there. Point is the message Southampton is sending to potential customers like me. I'm not struggling for money, i'm not rich either. When I decide to go out in an evening, I don't deliberate about how much fuel I'll use (perhaps some do but I don't). Romsey and Winchester are not that far away, so even if its further, its insignificant. I have a democratic right to support causes I believe in. I don't believe in Southampton's cause where they want to use motorists as a cash cow. Quite simply, they don't want my business. I will support towns and businesses that do.[/p][/quote]For people like myself, who already live in Romsey (and so would already have to pay fuel to get into Southampton, then an additional parking charge on top) it encourages us to stay away. Southampton is a local town, for local people. They don't want strangers to encourage a thriving night life.[/p][/quote]For the sake of £2 you cut off your nose to spite your face. . Anyone would think that it a weeks pay the way that some go on. .[/p][/quote]Exactly what did you say when the Tory council did this previously? loosehead
  • Score: -1

4:02pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Lone Ranger. says...

loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
RomseyKeith wrote:
manic75 wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
Lost Generation wrote: I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives. After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.
How much do you spend on fuel?
It's the principle of the matter, not the spend. I'll happily pay more on fuel to dine further away as quite simply I want to hurt Southampton by no longer dining there. Point is the message Southampton is sending to potential customers like me. I'm not struggling for money, i'm not rich either. When I decide to go out in an evening, I don't deliberate about how much fuel I'll use (perhaps some do but I don't). Romsey and Winchester are not that far away, so even if its further, its insignificant. I have a democratic right to support causes I believe in. I don't believe in Southampton's cause where they want to use motorists as a cash cow. Quite simply, they don't want my business. I will support towns and businesses that do.
For people like myself, who already live in Romsey (and so would already have to pay fuel to get into Southampton, then an additional parking charge on top) it encourages us to stay away. Southampton is a local town, for local people. They don't want strangers to encourage a thriving night life.
For the sake of £2 you cut off your nose to spite your face.
.
Anyone would think that it a weeks pay the way that some go on.
.
Exactly what did you say when the Tory council did this previously?
Oh so now you are saying that they did do it ....... make your mind up.
.
So when you said they didnt do it were you telling lies AGAIN
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RomseyKeith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]manic75[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lost Generation[/bold] wrote: I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives. After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.[/p][/quote]How much do you spend on fuel?[/p][/quote]It's the principle of the matter, not the spend. I'll happily pay more on fuel to dine further away as quite simply I want to hurt Southampton by no longer dining there. Point is the message Southampton is sending to potential customers like me. I'm not struggling for money, i'm not rich either. When I decide to go out in an evening, I don't deliberate about how much fuel I'll use (perhaps some do but I don't). Romsey and Winchester are not that far away, so even if its further, its insignificant. I have a democratic right to support causes I believe in. I don't believe in Southampton's cause where they want to use motorists as a cash cow. Quite simply, they don't want my business. I will support towns and businesses that do.[/p][/quote]For people like myself, who already live in Romsey (and so would already have to pay fuel to get into Southampton, then an additional parking charge on top) it encourages us to stay away. Southampton is a local town, for local people. They don't want strangers to encourage a thriving night life.[/p][/quote]For the sake of £2 you cut off your nose to spite your face. . Anyone would think that it a weeks pay the way that some go on. .[/p][/quote]Exactly what did you say when the Tory council did this previously?[/p][/quote]Oh so now you are saying that they did do it ....... make your mind up. . So when you said they didnt do it were you telling lies AGAIN Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

4:09pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

"For the sake of £2 you cut off your nose to spite your face.
.
Anyone would think that it a weeks pay the way that some go on"
2 quid now. 5 years' time.....?.
The jackals have smelt new meat.
.
"For the sake of £2 you cut off your nose to spite your face. . Anyone would think that it a weeks pay the way that some go on" 2 quid now. 5 years' time.....?. The jackals have smelt new meat. . Dai Rear
  • Score: -1

4:25pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Dai Rear wrote:
"For the sake of £2 you cut off your nose to spite your face.
.
Anyone would think that it a weeks pay the way that some go on"
2 quid now. 5 years' time.....?.
The jackals have smelt new meat.
.
What has 5 years time got to do with it ...... You are taking my comments out of context .....
.
So he doesnt go into town to eat at possibly a better restaurant or see a show ..... for the sake of £2 !!!! ..... and 4 in a car .. 50p each
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: "For the sake of £2 you cut off your nose to spite your face. . Anyone would think that it a weeks pay the way that some go on" 2 quid now. 5 years' time.....?. The jackals have smelt new meat. .[/p][/quote]What has 5 years time got to do with it ...... You are taking my comments out of context ..... . So he doesnt go into town to eat at possibly a better restaurant or see a show ..... for the sake of £2 !!!! ..... and 4 in a car .. 50p each Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -1

4:31pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

Because grasping council clerks know when they're on to a good thing. Think 5 years time. Think the price of a meal in a restaurant. We are one of the most heavily taxed countries in the world.
Because grasping council clerks know when they're on to a good thing. Think 5 years time. Think the price of a meal in a restaurant. We are one of the most heavily taxed countries in the world. Dai Rear
  • Score: -1

6:07pm Fri 21 Mar 14

loosehead says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
RomseyKeith wrote:
manic75 wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
Lost Generation wrote: I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives. After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.
How much do you spend on fuel?
It's the principle of the matter, not the spend. I'll happily pay more on fuel to dine further away as quite simply I want to hurt Southampton by no longer dining there. Point is the message Southampton is sending to potential customers like me. I'm not struggling for money, i'm not rich either. When I decide to go out in an evening, I don't deliberate about how much fuel I'll use (perhaps some do but I don't). Romsey and Winchester are not that far away, so even if its further, its insignificant. I have a democratic right to support causes I believe in. I don't believe in Southampton's cause where they want to use motorists as a cash cow. Quite simply, they don't want my business. I will support towns and businesses that do.
For people like myself, who already live in Romsey (and so would already have to pay fuel to get into Southampton, then an additional parking charge on top) it encourages us to stay away. Southampton is a local town, for local people. They don't want strangers to encourage a thriving night life.
For the sake of £2 you cut off your nose to spite your face.
.
Anyone would think that it a weeks pay the way that some go on.
.
Exactly what did you say when the Tory council did this previously?
Oh so now you are saying that they did do it ....... make your mind up.
.
So when you said they didnt do it were you telling lies AGAIN
okay this is from my above post now please tell me where I say the Tories didn't do it?
equal, the difference is the Tories saw what harm night charges & higher parking charges did so scrapped night timer charges & lowered daytime charges will Labour admit they've got it wrong?
so if you read it correctly I actually admitted the Tories did impose night time charges but saw they had made a mistake & scrapped it so Sorry NO I wasn't lying.
I have said if I mixed you up with another poster who offered to meet me in his local I'm sorry but this doesn't make me into the liar you continuously call me!
So where's the acceptance of my apology or does it suit your purpose just to call me a liar?
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RomseyKeith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]manic75[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lost Generation[/bold] wrote: I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives. After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.[/p][/quote]How much do you spend on fuel?[/p][/quote]It's the principle of the matter, not the spend. I'll happily pay more on fuel to dine further away as quite simply I want to hurt Southampton by no longer dining there. Point is the message Southampton is sending to potential customers like me. I'm not struggling for money, i'm not rich either. When I decide to go out in an evening, I don't deliberate about how much fuel I'll use (perhaps some do but I don't). Romsey and Winchester are not that far away, so even if its further, its insignificant. I have a democratic right to support causes I believe in. I don't believe in Southampton's cause where they want to use motorists as a cash cow. Quite simply, they don't want my business. I will support towns and businesses that do.[/p][/quote]For people like myself, who already live in Romsey (and so would already have to pay fuel to get into Southampton, then an additional parking charge on top) it encourages us to stay away. Southampton is a local town, for local people. They don't want strangers to encourage a thriving night life.[/p][/quote]For the sake of £2 you cut off your nose to spite your face. . Anyone would think that it a weeks pay the way that some go on. .[/p][/quote]Exactly what did you say when the Tory council did this previously?[/p][/quote]Oh so now you are saying that they did do it ....... make your mind up. . So when you said they didnt do it were you telling lies AGAIN[/p][/quote]okay this is from my above post now please tell me where I say the Tories didn't do it? equal, the difference is the Tories saw what harm night charges & higher parking charges did so scrapped night timer charges & lowered daytime charges will Labour admit they've got it wrong? so if you read it correctly I actually admitted the Tories did impose night time charges but saw they had made a mistake & scrapped it so Sorry NO I wasn't lying. I have said if I mixed you up with another poster who offered to meet me in his local I'm sorry but this doesn't make me into the liar you continuously call me! So where's the acceptance of my apology or does it suit your purpose just to call me a liar? loosehead
  • Score: 0

6:39pm Fri 21 Mar 14

S Pance says...

Rayment strikes again!!!

Vote wisely, guys...
Rayment strikes again!!! Vote wisely, guys... S Pance
  • Score: -1

8:46pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Lone Ranger. says...

loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
RomseyKeith wrote:
manic75 wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
Lost Generation wrote: I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives. After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.
How much do you spend on fuel?
It's the principle of the matter, not the spend. I'll happily pay more on fuel to dine further away as quite simply I want to hurt Southampton by no longer dining there. Point is the message Southampton is sending to potential customers like me. I'm not struggling for money, i'm not rich either. When I decide to go out in an evening, I don't deliberate about how much fuel I'll use (perhaps some do but I don't). Romsey and Winchester are not that far away, so even if its further, its insignificant. I have a democratic right to support causes I believe in. I don't believe in Southampton's cause where they want to use motorists as a cash cow. Quite simply, they don't want my business. I will support towns and businesses that do.
For people like myself, who already live in Romsey (and so would already have to pay fuel to get into Southampton, then an additional parking charge on top) it encourages us to stay away. Southampton is a local town, for local people. They don't want strangers to encourage a thriving night life.
For the sake of £2 you cut off your nose to spite your face.
.
Anyone would think that it a weeks pay the way that some go on.
.
Exactly what did you say when the Tory council did this previously?
Oh so now you are saying that they did do it ....... make your mind up.
.
So when you said they didnt do it were you telling lies AGAIN
okay this is from my above post now please tell me where I say the Tories didn't do it?
equal, the difference is the Tories saw what harm night charges & higher parking charges did so scrapped night timer charges & lowered daytime charges will Labour admit they've got it wrong?
so if you read it correctly I actually admitted the Tories did impose night time charges but saw they had made a mistake & scrapped it so Sorry NO I wasn't lying.
I have said if I mixed you up with another poster who offered to meet me in his local I'm sorry but this doesn't make me into the liar you continuously call me!
So where's the acceptance of my apology or does it suit your purpose just to call me a liar?
How can anyone read your posts "correctly".
.
So did they do it or didnt they ..... a simple yes or no will be ok.
.
But if you want some guidance ....... YES THEY DID
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RomseyKeith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]manic75[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lost Generation[/bold] wrote: I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives. After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.[/p][/quote]How much do you spend on fuel?[/p][/quote]It's the principle of the matter, not the spend. I'll happily pay more on fuel to dine further away as quite simply I want to hurt Southampton by no longer dining there. Point is the message Southampton is sending to potential customers like me. I'm not struggling for money, i'm not rich either. When I decide to go out in an evening, I don't deliberate about how much fuel I'll use (perhaps some do but I don't). Romsey and Winchester are not that far away, so even if its further, its insignificant. I have a democratic right to support causes I believe in. I don't believe in Southampton's cause where they want to use motorists as a cash cow. Quite simply, they don't want my business. I will support towns and businesses that do.[/p][/quote]For people like myself, who already live in Romsey (and so would already have to pay fuel to get into Southampton, then an additional parking charge on top) it encourages us to stay away. Southampton is a local town, for local people. They don't want strangers to encourage a thriving night life.[/p][/quote]For the sake of £2 you cut off your nose to spite your face. . Anyone would think that it a weeks pay the way that some go on. .[/p][/quote]Exactly what did you say when the Tory council did this previously?[/p][/quote]Oh so now you are saying that they did do it ....... make your mind up. . So when you said they didnt do it were you telling lies AGAIN[/p][/quote]okay this is from my above post now please tell me where I say the Tories didn't do it? equal, the difference is the Tories saw what harm night charges & higher parking charges did so scrapped night timer charges & lowered daytime charges will Labour admit they've got it wrong? so if you read it correctly I actually admitted the Tories did impose night time charges but saw they had made a mistake & scrapped it so Sorry NO I wasn't lying. I have said if I mixed you up with another poster who offered to meet me in his local I'm sorry but this doesn't make me into the liar you continuously call me! So where's the acceptance of my apology or does it suit your purpose just to call me a liar?[/p][/quote]How can anyone read your posts "correctly". . So did they do it or didnt they ..... a simple yes or no will be ok. . But if you want some guidance ....... YES THEY DID Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -2

9:11pm Fri 21 Mar 14

loosehead says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
RomseyKeith wrote:
manic75 wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
Lost Generation wrote: I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives. After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.
How much do you spend on fuel?
It's the principle of the matter, not the spend. I'll happily pay more on fuel to dine further away as quite simply I want to hurt Southampton by no longer dining there. Point is the message Southampton is sending to potential customers like me. I'm not struggling for money, i'm not rich either. When I decide to go out in an evening, I don't deliberate about how much fuel I'll use (perhaps some do but I don't). Romsey and Winchester are not that far away, so even if its further, its insignificant. I have a democratic right to support causes I believe in. I don't believe in Southampton's cause where they want to use motorists as a cash cow. Quite simply, they don't want my business. I will support towns and businesses that do.
For people like myself, who already live in Romsey (and so would already have to pay fuel to get into Southampton, then an additional parking charge on top) it encourages us to stay away. Southampton is a local town, for local people. They don't want strangers to encourage a thriving night life.
For the sake of £2 you cut off your nose to spite your face.
.
Anyone would think that it a weeks pay the way that some go on.
.
Exactly what did you say when the Tory council did this previously?
Oh so now you are saying that they did do it ....... make your mind up.
.
So when you said they didnt do it were you telling lies AGAIN
okay this is from my above post now please tell me where I say the Tories didn't do it?
equal, the difference is the Tories saw what harm night charges & higher parking charges did so scrapped night timer charges & lowered daytime charges will Labour admit they've got it wrong?
so if you read it correctly I actually admitted the Tories did impose night time charges but saw they had made a mistake & scrapped it so Sorry NO I wasn't lying.
I have said if I mixed you up with another poster who offered to meet me in his local I'm sorry but this doesn't make me into the liar you continuously call me!
So where's the acceptance of my apology or does it suit your purpose just to call me a liar?
How can anyone read your posts "correctly".
.
So did they do it or didnt they ..... a simple yes or no will be ok.
.
But if you want some guidance ....... YES THEY DID
so insult after insult! I've tried the nice guy approach with you but your just not worth trying to be decent to.
On several posts I did say Yes they did but let's get this straight just because Ed Milliband can't knock the government or the budget he Says about the 40p tax rate the very rate Labour had for high earners for 13 years & he speaks to David Cameron in the stupid manner you've just posted to me.
So I'll take it as a compliment being compared to Cameron.
Unemployment down,Youth unemployment down,Inflation down, the tax we all pay down thanks to the raising of the tax threshold, GDP up all signs the debt left by Labour will be gone & we'll be in credit by 2018 & who says this?
the Financial institutes so Labour have very little now to attack the record of this government exactly like you councillor.
Labours category of C+ck ups is beyond belief yet here you are attacking me why? because you can't stand the truth well let's hope the voters wake up & vote you lot out in MAY
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RomseyKeith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]manic75[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lost Generation[/bold] wrote: I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives. After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.[/p][/quote]How much do you spend on fuel?[/p][/quote]It's the principle of the matter, not the spend. I'll happily pay more on fuel to dine further away as quite simply I want to hurt Southampton by no longer dining there. Point is the message Southampton is sending to potential customers like me. I'm not struggling for money, i'm not rich either. When I decide to go out in an evening, I don't deliberate about how much fuel I'll use (perhaps some do but I don't). Romsey and Winchester are not that far away, so even if its further, its insignificant. I have a democratic right to support causes I believe in. I don't believe in Southampton's cause where they want to use motorists as a cash cow. Quite simply, they don't want my business. I will support towns and businesses that do.[/p][/quote]For people like myself, who already live in Romsey (and so would already have to pay fuel to get into Southampton, then an additional parking charge on top) it encourages us to stay away. Southampton is a local town, for local people. They don't want strangers to encourage a thriving night life.[/p][/quote]For the sake of £2 you cut off your nose to spite your face. . Anyone would think that it a weeks pay the way that some go on. .[/p][/quote]Exactly what did you say when the Tory council did this previously?[/p][/quote]Oh so now you are saying that they did do it ....... make your mind up. . So when you said they didnt do it were you telling lies AGAIN[/p][/quote]okay this is from my above post now please tell me where I say the Tories didn't do it? equal, the difference is the Tories saw what harm night charges & higher parking charges did so scrapped night timer charges & lowered daytime charges will Labour admit they've got it wrong? so if you read it correctly I actually admitted the Tories did impose night time charges but saw they had made a mistake & scrapped it so Sorry NO I wasn't lying. I have said if I mixed you up with another poster who offered to meet me in his local I'm sorry but this doesn't make me into the liar you continuously call me! So where's the acceptance of my apology or does it suit your purpose just to call me a liar?[/p][/quote]How can anyone read your posts "correctly". . So did they do it or didnt they ..... a simple yes or no will be ok. . But if you want some guidance ....... YES THEY DID[/p][/quote]so insult after insult! I've tried the nice guy approach with you but your just not worth trying to be decent to. On several posts I did say Yes they did but let's get this straight just because Ed Milliband can't knock the government or the budget he Says about the 40p tax rate the very rate Labour had for high earners for 13 years & he speaks to David Cameron in the stupid manner you've just posted to me. So I'll take it as a compliment being compared to Cameron. Unemployment down,Youth unemployment down,Inflation down, the tax we all pay down thanks to the raising of the tax threshold, GDP up all signs the debt left by Labour will be gone & we'll be in credit by 2018 & who says this? the Financial institutes so Labour have very little now to attack the record of this government exactly like you councillor. Labours category of C+ck ups is beyond belief yet here you are attacking me why? because you can't stand the truth well let's hope the voters wake up & vote you lot out in MAY loosehead
  • Score: 0

8:29am Sat 22 Mar 14

Lone Ranger. says...

loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
RomseyKeith wrote:
manic75 wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
Lost Generation wrote: I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives. After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.
How much do you spend on fuel?
It's the principle of the matter, not the spend. I'll happily pay more on fuel to dine further away as quite simply I want to hurt Southampton by no longer dining there. Point is the message Southampton is sending to potential customers like me. I'm not struggling for money, i'm not rich either. When I decide to go out in an evening, I don't deliberate about how much fuel I'll use (perhaps some do but I don't). Romsey and Winchester are not that far away, so even if its further, its insignificant. I have a democratic right to support causes I believe in. I don't believe in Southampton's cause where they want to use motorists as a cash cow. Quite simply, they don't want my business. I will support towns and businesses that do.
For people like myself, who already live in Romsey (and so would already have to pay fuel to get into Southampton, then an additional parking charge on top) it encourages us to stay away. Southampton is a local town, for local people. They don't want strangers to encourage a thriving night life.
For the sake of £2 you cut off your nose to spite your face.
.
Anyone would think that it a weeks pay the way that some go on.
.
Exactly what did you say when the Tory council did this previously?
Oh so now you are saying that they did do it ....... make your mind up.
.
So when you said they didnt do it were you telling lies AGAIN
okay this is from my above post now please tell me where I say the Tories didn't do it?
equal, the difference is the Tories saw what harm night charges & higher parking charges did so scrapped night timer charges & lowered daytime charges will Labour admit they've got it wrong?
so if you read it correctly I actually admitted the Tories did impose night time charges but saw they had made a mistake & scrapped it so Sorry NO I wasn't lying.
I have said if I mixed you up with another poster who offered to meet me in his local I'm sorry but this doesn't make me into the liar you continuously call me!
So where's the acceptance of my apology or does it suit your purpose just to call me a liar?
How can anyone read your posts "correctly".
.
So did they do it or didnt they ..... a simple yes or no will be ok.
.
But if you want some guidance ....... YES THEY DID
so insult after insult! I've tried the nice guy approach with you but your just not worth trying to be decent to.
On several posts I did say Yes they did but let's get this straight just because Ed Milliband can't knock the government or the budget he Says about the 40p tax rate the very rate Labour had for high earners for 13 years & he speaks to David Cameron in the stupid manner you've just posted to me.
So I'll take it as a compliment being compared to Cameron.
Unemployment down,Youth unemployment down,Inflation down, the tax we all pay down thanks to the raising of the tax threshold, GDP up all signs the debt left by Labour will be gone & we'll be in credit by 2018 & who says this?
the Financial institutes so Labour have very little now to attack the record of this government exactly like you councillor.
Labours category of C+ck ups is beyond belief yet here you are attacking me why? because you can't stand the truth well let's hope the voters wake up & vote you lot out in MAY
Ummmm ..... so you are now saying ( again ) YES THEY DID.
.
So why are you continually arguing ...... why did you say they didnt ?
.
As regards the rest of your post ....... full of Red Herrings ...... nothing to do with the topic that you are beaten on ....... again
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RomseyKeith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]manic75[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lost Generation[/bold] wrote: I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives. After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.[/p][/quote]How much do you spend on fuel?[/p][/quote]It's the principle of the matter, not the spend. I'll happily pay more on fuel to dine further away as quite simply I want to hurt Southampton by no longer dining there. Point is the message Southampton is sending to potential customers like me. I'm not struggling for money, i'm not rich either. When I decide to go out in an evening, I don't deliberate about how much fuel I'll use (perhaps some do but I don't). Romsey and Winchester are not that far away, so even if its further, its insignificant. I have a democratic right to support causes I believe in. I don't believe in Southampton's cause where they want to use motorists as a cash cow. Quite simply, they don't want my business. I will support towns and businesses that do.[/p][/quote]For people like myself, who already live in Romsey (and so would already have to pay fuel to get into Southampton, then an additional parking charge on top) it encourages us to stay away. Southampton is a local town, for local people. They don't want strangers to encourage a thriving night life.[/p][/quote]For the sake of £2 you cut off your nose to spite your face. . Anyone would think that it a weeks pay the way that some go on. .[/p][/quote]Exactly what did you say when the Tory council did this previously?[/p][/quote]Oh so now you are saying that they did do it ....... make your mind up. . So when you said they didnt do it were you telling lies AGAIN[/p][/quote]okay this is from my above post now please tell me where I say the Tories didn't do it? equal, the difference is the Tories saw what harm night charges & higher parking charges did so scrapped night timer charges & lowered daytime charges will Labour admit they've got it wrong? so if you read it correctly I actually admitted the Tories did impose night time charges but saw they had made a mistake & scrapped it so Sorry NO I wasn't lying. I have said if I mixed you up with another poster who offered to meet me in his local I'm sorry but this doesn't make me into the liar you continuously call me! So where's the acceptance of my apology or does it suit your purpose just to call me a liar?[/p][/quote]How can anyone read your posts "correctly". . So did they do it or didnt they ..... a simple yes or no will be ok. . But if you want some guidance ....... YES THEY DID[/p][/quote]so insult after insult! I've tried the nice guy approach with you but your just not worth trying to be decent to. On several posts I did say Yes they did but let's get this straight just because Ed Milliband can't knock the government or the budget he Says about the 40p tax rate the very rate Labour had for high earners for 13 years & he speaks to David Cameron in the stupid manner you've just posted to me. So I'll take it as a compliment being compared to Cameron. Unemployment down,Youth unemployment down,Inflation down, the tax we all pay down thanks to the raising of the tax threshold, GDP up all signs the debt left by Labour will be gone & we'll be in credit by 2018 & who says this? the Financial institutes so Labour have very little now to attack the record of this government exactly like you councillor. Labours category of C+ck ups is beyond belief yet here you are attacking me why? because you can't stand the truth well let's hope the voters wake up & vote you lot out in MAY[/p][/quote]Ummmm ..... so you are now saying ( again ) YES THEY DID. . So why are you continually arguing ...... why did you say they didnt ? . As regards the rest of your post ....... full of Red Herrings ...... nothing to do with the topic that you are beaten on ....... again Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

11:18am Sat 22 Mar 14

loosehead says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
RomseyKeith wrote:
manic75 wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
Lost Generation wrote: I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives. After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.
How much do you spend on fuel?
It's the principle of the matter, not the spend. I'll happily pay more on fuel to dine further away as quite simply I want to hurt Southampton by no longer dining there. Point is the message Southampton is sending to potential customers like me. I'm not struggling for money, i'm not rich either. When I decide to go out in an evening, I don't deliberate about how much fuel I'll use (perhaps some do but I don't). Romsey and Winchester are not that far away, so even if its further, its insignificant. I have a democratic right to support causes I believe in. I don't believe in Southampton's cause where they want to use motorists as a cash cow. Quite simply, they don't want my business. I will support towns and businesses that do.
For people like myself, who already live in Romsey (and so would already have to pay fuel to get into Southampton, then an additional parking charge on top) it encourages us to stay away. Southampton is a local town, for local people. They don't want strangers to encourage a thriving night life.
For the sake of £2 you cut off your nose to spite your face.
.
Anyone would think that it a weeks pay the way that some go on.
.
Exactly what did you say when the Tory council did this previously?
Oh so now you are saying that they did do it ....... make your mind up.
.
So when you said they didnt do it were you telling lies AGAIN
okay this is from my above post now please tell me where I say the Tories didn't do it?
equal, the difference is the Tories saw what harm night charges & higher parking charges did so scrapped night timer charges & lowered daytime charges will Labour admit they've got it wrong?
so if you read it correctly I actually admitted the Tories did impose night time charges but saw they had made a mistake & scrapped it so Sorry NO I wasn't lying.
I have said if I mixed you up with another poster who offered to meet me in his local I'm sorry but this doesn't make me into the liar you continuously call me!
So where's the acceptance of my apology or does it suit your purpose just to call me a liar?
How can anyone read your posts "correctly".
.
So did they do it or didnt they ..... a simple yes or no will be ok.
.
But if you want some guidance ....... YES THEY DID
so insult after insult! I've tried the nice guy approach with you but your just not worth trying to be decent to.
On several posts I did say Yes they did but let's get this straight just because Ed Milliband can't knock the government or the budget he Says about the 40p tax rate the very rate Labour had for high earners for 13 years & he speaks to David Cameron in the stupid manner you've just posted to me.
So I'll take it as a compliment being compared to Cameron.
Unemployment down,Youth unemployment down,Inflation down, the tax we all pay down thanks to the raising of the tax threshold, GDP up all signs the debt left by Labour will be gone & we'll be in credit by 2018 & who says this?
the Financial institutes so Labour have very little now to attack the record of this government exactly like you councillor.
Labours category of C+ck ups is beyond belief yet here you are attacking me why? because you can't stand the truth well let's hope the voters wake up & vote you lot out in MAY
Ummmm ..... so you are now saying ( again ) YES THEY DID.
.
So why are you continually arguing ...... why did you say they didnt ?
.
As regards the rest of your post ....... full of Red Herrings ...... nothing to do with the topic that you are beaten on ....... again
please show me where I said they didn't? maybe you owe me an apology & you've got me mixed up with another poster?
I can easily remember what happened & I also remember the Tory Council admitting it was the wrong thing to do now will Labour admit it?
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RomseyKeith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]manic75[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lost Generation[/bold] wrote: I've stopped using Restaurants within the city centre as a result of this. Why pay to park when i can drive anywhere else and park for free. Romsey & The New Forest have some lovely alternatives. After 6:30pm you can drive into Central London without paying a Congestion Charge and park on any single yellow line for free. That, Southampton City Council is how you encourage evening trade within your city.[/p][/quote]How much do you spend on fuel?[/p][/quote]It's the principle of the matter, not the spend. I'll happily pay more on fuel to dine further away as quite simply I want to hurt Southampton by no longer dining there. Point is the message Southampton is sending to potential customers like me. I'm not struggling for money, i'm not rich either. When I decide to go out in an evening, I don't deliberate about how much fuel I'll use (perhaps some do but I don't). Romsey and Winchester are not that far away, so even if its further, its insignificant. I have a democratic right to support causes I believe in. I don't believe in Southampton's cause where they want to use motorists as a cash cow. Quite simply, they don't want my business. I will support towns and businesses that do.[/p][/quote]For people like myself, who already live in Romsey (and so would already have to pay fuel to get into Southampton, then an additional parking charge on top) it encourages us to stay away. Southampton is a local town, for local people. They don't want strangers to encourage a thriving night life.[/p][/quote]For the sake of £2 you cut off your nose to spite your face. . Anyone would think that it a weeks pay the way that some go on. .[/p][/quote]Exactly what did you say when the Tory council did this previously?[/p][/quote]Oh so now you are saying that they did do it ....... make your mind up. . So when you said they didnt do it were you telling lies AGAIN[/p][/quote]okay this is from my above post now please tell me where I say the Tories didn't do it? equal, the difference is the Tories saw what harm night charges & higher parking charges did so scrapped night timer charges & lowered daytime charges will Labour admit they've got it wrong? so if you read it correctly I actually admitted the Tories did impose night time charges but saw they had made a mistake & scrapped it so Sorry NO I wasn't lying. I have said if I mixed you up with another poster who offered to meet me in his local I'm sorry but this doesn't make me into the liar you continuously call me! So where's the acceptance of my apology or does it suit your purpose just to call me a liar?[/p][/quote]How can anyone read your posts "correctly". . So did they do it or didnt they ..... a simple yes or no will be ok. . But if you want some guidance ....... YES THEY DID[/p][/quote]so insult after insult! I've tried the nice guy approach with you but your just not worth trying to be decent to. On several posts I did say Yes they did but let's get this straight just because Ed Milliband can't knock the government or the budget he Says about the 40p tax rate the very rate Labour had for high earners for 13 years & he speaks to David Cameron in the stupid manner you've just posted to me. So I'll take it as a compliment being compared to Cameron. Unemployment down,Youth unemployment down,Inflation down, the tax we all pay down thanks to the raising of the tax threshold, GDP up all signs the debt left by Labour will be gone & we'll be in credit by 2018 & who says this? the Financial institutes so Labour have very little now to attack the record of this government exactly like you councillor. Labours category of C+ck ups is beyond belief yet here you are attacking me why? because you can't stand the truth well let's hope the voters wake up & vote you lot out in MAY[/p][/quote]Ummmm ..... so you are now saying ( again ) YES THEY DID. . So why are you continually arguing ...... why did you say they didnt ? . As regards the rest of your post ....... full of Red Herrings ...... nothing to do with the topic that you are beaten on ....... again[/p][/quote]please show me where I said they didn't? maybe you owe me an apology & you've got me mixed up with another poster? I can easily remember what happened & I also remember the Tory Council admitting it was the wrong thing to do now will Labour admit it? loosehead
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree