# Dropped kerbs!



## ufkacbln (3 Jan 2009)

Wonderful bleating on the BBC about people being fined for blocking dropped kerbs.

Simple - it is absolutely clear in the Highway Code - Don't do it and you won't get fined!


----------



## BentMikey (3 Jan 2009)

Stupid morons!


----------



## Rhythm Thief (3 Jan 2009)

Gis a link, then.


----------



## purplepolly (3 Jan 2009)

Are people stupid or just plain selfish? Dropped kerbs are for people in wheelchairs, with pushchairs or mobility problems, what are they supposed to do?


----------



## purplepolly (3 Jan 2009)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7809206.stm

the AA wants to improve signage, the chairman of the Local Government Association's regeneration and transport board says "Why should we spend a fortune for a bunch of idiots?"


----------



## summerdays (3 Jan 2009)

I don't see why they need to be marked with white paint - unless it is in an area which has problems.


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Jan 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Gis a link, then.



Would normally do so, but 'twas on BBC1 breakfast which doesn't have a link or any Iplayer replay!

What really amused me was the guy (I think from the AA) who was doing the usual complaining about "revenue raising" and how the Local Council would "sneak around at night" like they did to catch pavement parking - never occurred to the numpty that pedestrians use pavements in the dark!

Presumably he thinks people don't use wheelchairs or their drives in the dark either?


----------



## andygates (4 Jan 2009)

I parked in front of one by mistake once. Got a ticket *and* a row from the lady wot lived there. My reaction:

"Oh no, I have inadvertently done something bad, I shall take my lumps like a grownup."

The bleating is pathetic and juvenile.


----------



## jonesy (4 Jan 2009)

This is completely disingenuous of the AA. They know fully well what would be involved in correctly signposting every dropped kerb, and how expensive it would be, and they know fully well that expense isn't justified. What they really want is for drivers to be allowed to get away with obstructing them, but they daren't say it outright, so instead we get a load of crap like this.


----------



## purplepolly (4 Jan 2009)

Which is ridiculous - if drivers are allowed obstruct dropped kerbs, how will people in wheelchairs get around the cars parked on the pavement?


----------



## Tynan (4 Jan 2009)

yes, I couldn't believe my ears when I heard this


----------



## atbman (4 Jan 2009)

For those of you who may not be aware of this.

AA is an acronym for whining, whingeing, moaning, complaining, mithering, snivelling self-pitying plonkers


----------



## domd1979 (4 Jan 2009)

Cunobelin said:


> What really amused me was the guy (I think from the AA) who was doing the usual complaining about "revenue raising" and how the Local Council would "sneak around at night" like they did to catch pavement parking - never occurred to the numpty that pedestrians use pavements in the dark!



I bloody hate pavement parking, it is such moronic behaviour. Annoying thing is that the extent to which it can be enforced by traffic wardens is limited depending on the traffic regulation orders in place, and the rozzers who have wider powers aren't really interested.


----------



## summerdays (5 Jan 2009)

domd1979 said:


> I bloody hate pavement parking, it is such moronic behaviour. Annoying thing is that the extent to which it can be enforced by traffic wardens is limited depending on the traffic regulation orders in place, and the rozzers who have wider powers aren't really interested.



I've had success with getting them to ticket cars locally. They won't bother for the wheels just on the pavement but otherwise have been known to first give a warning and then ticket subsequently.


----------



## byegad (5 Jan 2009)

I had a problem with a neighbour who persistently trapped my car in the drive by parking across our gates. When asked to move the car so we could go out he would eventually, always a few minutes wait for him, move it and put it back as soon as we were out of the street. 

I finally solved it the day we came in to find him in his usual place. I parked a couple of millimetres from his back bumper and then went in to the house for the keys to my wife's new car, parked around the back. With that millimetres from his front bumper I waited. 

Sure enough later that day there was a knock at the door, he wanted to be out to go to work and couldnt move his car, didn't know who owned our second car so had to ask me to move mine. I told him I'd be right out and promptly did nothing, twenty minutes later he was back and again I told hom I'd be right out. 

Ten more minutes later he was really losing it. THAT'S when I told him I'd added up all the times we had waited for him and he had another fifteen hours or so to wait before I'd move either car. He was so angry I thought he'd have a heart attack on the front step! So I offered him a compromise. I'd move one of our cars now so he could go to work AND he'd never park across my gates again. Funnily enough he took it and kept his side of te bargain for the rest of the time we owned that house.

Revenge is a dish best best served cold and all that! I still, thirty years later, smile at the sheer fury he felt that day.


----------



## simoncc (5 Jan 2009)

I had problems with neighbours in terraced houses blocking my driveway so I sometimes couldn't get out. I solved the problem by parking in front of their houses for weeks on end. They told me that this was an outrage, that I was taking 'their place' and that I was being inconsiderate for parking on the road when I had a drive! 

The best way to solve problems like this is to tax or ban on-road parking. People with no off-road parking at home should be dissuaded from owning cars. Incredibly many councils encourge car ownership among those with no drives by providing reserved on-road parking for them at a negligible cost - these same councils often try to persuade people out of cars and onto public transport or bikes. Providing reserved on-road parking is hardly going to make people more inclined to do without a car is it?


----------



## domd1979 (5 Jan 2009)

simoncc said:


> Incredibly many councils encourge car ownership among those with no drives by providing reserved on-road parking for them at a negligible cost - these same councils often try to persuade people out of cars and onto public transport or bikes. Providing reserved on-road parking is hardly going to make people more inclined to do without a car is it?



Do you mean residents permits? If so then the maximum number of permits on issue and per household is often limited, in which case that does provide a disincentive to ownership.


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Jan 2009)

User76 said:


> but some of the PCSOs and the like around here would be only to glad to issues a ticket at night, they don't do anything else



This is back to the AA numpty - people use pavements at night. Parking on them or blocking access points is still an offence. If the offence is committed at night then issuing a ticket at night is as acceptable as at any other time.


----------



## purplepolly (5 Jan 2009)

On a nearby busy through road there's a narrow stretch of badly lit pavement where residents usually park partly on the pavement. Normally there's enough room to squeeze through but one night (9pm and after sunset) it was completely blocked and I had to detour on the road. There was no obvious gap in the oncoming traffic so I had to take my chance. One of the moron drivers hooted at me for being in the road. This is probably the time of night that the AA is whinging about.


----------



## BentMikey (6 Jan 2009)

byegad said:


> I had a problem with a neighbour who persistently trapped my car in the drive by parking across our gates. When asked to move the car so we could go out he would eventually, always a few minutes wait for him, move it and put it back as soon as we were out of the street.
> 
> I finally solved it the day we came in to find him in his usual place. I parked a couple of millimetres from his back bumper and then went in to the house for the keys to my wife's new car, parked around the back. With that millimetres from his front bumper I waited.
> 
> ...



Oooh you beauty!! That is a cool story!


----------



## BentMikey (6 Jan 2009)

purplepolly said:


> Are people stupid or just plain selfish? Dropped kerbs are for people in wheelchairs, with pushchairs or mobility problems, what are they supposed to do?



I think they are plain selfish for parking there, and then some of those are stupid for complaining about being ticketed for it.


----------



## Bollo (6 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> I think they are plain selfish for parking there, and then some of those are stupid for complaining about being ticketed for it.


Selfish car drivers? Nooooooooo!

On my first school drop off of the year and the usual suspects were out in force. Pavement parking forcing kids to walk on the road, dropped kerbs blocked, driving into the school despite requests not to.

Towards the end of last year they had the parking wardens out in force. One parent had parked their 4x4 up a pavement, blocking it completely. The warden signalled for him to move, so he did - by driving along the pavement at the warden!  Not fast, but enough so that the warden had to step out of the way. I offered to act as a witness but the warden was surprisingly chilled about it.


----------



## simoncc (6 Jan 2009)

domd1979 said:


> Do you mean residents permits? If so then the maximum number of permits on issue and per household is often limited, in which case that does provide a disincentive to ownership.



Allowing a household two guaranteed on road parking spaces at the ludicrously low cost of £30 per year certainly is an incentive to car ownership compared to offering them no guaranteed on road parking spaces which was the situation before the resident's parking scheme was introduced by the same council that tells us we should use public transport more.

Providing on-road parking spaces for anyone under any circumstances is an incentive to car ownership, and shows that most councils have no real transport policy but just a liking for anything which produces revenue and needs administrating.


----------



## domd1979 (6 Jan 2009)

simoncc said:


> Allowing a household two guaranteed on road parking spaces at the ludicrously low cost of £30 per year certainly is an incentive to car ownership compared to offering them no guaranteed on road parking spaces which was the situation before the resident's parking scheme was introduced by the same council that tells us we should use public transport more.



I'd be surprised if the majority of streets where residents permit operated had space for two cars per household. Many schemes work on issuing 20% more permits than there are spaces, since all the cars in a street are rarely there all at the same time, so permit doesn't equate to guaranteed space. Permits can certainly help a more equitable distribution of space. Where I lived previously, on-street parking was necessary for most households, and parking was extremely difficult most evenings. This didn't stop the house opposite having 5 cars.

Residents permit schemes often aren't about the car use/ownership of the residents in that street. Take a railway station, with lots of residential roads around - commuters all turn up and don't want to pay for parking at the station (or there isn't any) and abandon their motors in the surrounding streets (annoying, but technically legal). Introduce a residents permit scheme and that knocks the commuters' parking behaviour on the head. Either they have to pay to park or get to the station some other way. So the scheme is a disincentive to car use for this group. Same applies for residential streets near town centres.



> Providing on-road parking spaces for anyone under any circumstances is an incentive to car ownership, and shows that most councils have no real transport policy but just a liking for anything which produces revenue and needs administrating.



So you advocate no on street parking for anyone. How would that be enforced? Yellow lines? Who polices them? Local council. Wouldn't that be just a "revenue producing" exercise....?

I wouldn't say residents permit schemes make a profit given the cost of an attendant to patrol any permit areas.


----------



## Tony (7 Jan 2009)

He doesn't live in a terraced house like the great unwashed.....


----------



## snorri (7 Jan 2009)

Our attitudes with regard to usage of our streets defy any logic. It is generally accepted that people will obstruct the road in front of their home with a parked car, but if a householder with no car decided to set out some pot plants or cordon off an area for child play equipment for a few days, or even worse erected a temporary cycle store, I imagine there would be all sorts of public outcry.


----------



## summerdays (7 Jan 2009)

snorri said:


> Our attitudes with regard to usage of our streets defy any logic. It is generally accepted that people will obstruct the road in front of their home with a parked car, but if a householder with no car decided to set out some pot plants or cordon off an area for child play equipment for a few days, or even worse erected a temporary cycle store, I imagine there would be all sorts of public outcry.



Interesting point - I'd never looked at it that way... though it does bug me when people with drives leave cars on the road cos the can't be bothered to put them off the road.


----------



## Amanda P (7 Jan 2009)

Clicky.

A couple of years ago I remember reading a blog about people doing this regularly as a sort of demonstration against car culture. Their point was that once you've put your money in the meter, the parking space is rented for the time to do with as you will. They put down turf, brought in trees, set up benches... Ineveitably, this was in California.

Maybe we should do this in some UK cities.


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Jan 2009)

snorri said:


> Our attitudes with regard to usage of our streets defy any logic. It is generally accepted that people will obstruct the road in front of their home with a parked car, but if a householder with no car decided to set out some pot plants or cordon off an area for child play equipment for a few days, or even worse erected a temporary cycle store, I imagine there would be all sorts of public outcry.




Very interesting point. I'm reminded of a case where enforcement action was taken against a householder in Kingston-upon-Thames (a Borough with pretensions to green-ness) for putting a bike locker in his front garden.


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Jan 2009)

Uncle Phil said:


> Clicky.
> 
> A couple of years ago I remember reading a blog about people doing this regularly as a sort of demonstration against car culture. Their point was that once you've put your money in the meter, the parking space is rented for the time to do with as you will. They put down turf, brought in trees, set up benches... Ineveitably, this was in California.
> 
> Maybe we should do this in some UK cities.



It's happened in the UK, and I can't recall where....


----------



## simoncc (7 Jan 2009)

> Simon,
> 
> Would you manage without your car if your house didn't have a drive?



I bought a house with a drive so I could park my car on it. If I owned horses I'd have bought a house with stables. If I owned a helicopter I'd have bought a house with a landing pad. I wouldn't have expected to keep either my horses or the helicopter on the public roads when I wasn't using them simply because I chosen to buy a terraced house.


A few years ago my council was completely uninterested in the problems terraced house owners had in parking gtheir cars. Those problems were for the houseowner to take care of themselves. Various solutions present themselves. Move and buy a house with a drive, do without a car and use public transport or a bike or put up with having to park your car when and where you could.

Now, when the council tells us it want everyone to stop using cars so much it actively makes car ownership easier and more convenient for a great number of households by selling them guaranteed parking spaces at a very, very low cost. Not very sensisble at all. 


If car ownership is made more convenient then care usage will probably go up. Councils should tax residents who have nowhere off-road to park their cars, not provide them with subsidised parking.


----------



## tdr1nka (7 Jan 2009)

I can now only imagine Simon's house with a helicopter parked in the road outside.

In America they have coloured kerbs for designated use and fines for their misuse. Oh yeah, that's America.


----------



## purplepolly (7 Jan 2009)

simoncc said:


> I bought a house with a drive so I could park my car on it.
> 
> Various solutions present themselves. Move and buy a house with a drive, do without a car and use public transport or a bike or put up with having to park your car when and where you could..




People tend to buy terraced houses becauses they can't afford the ones with drives. What you're actually saying is that we should go back to reserving driving for well-off people. Unfortunately, this is no longer the same country where that set-up worked. We no longer have scores of factories where the poor can work close to home, most households need to have two adults in work so it's hard to live close to both workplaces. We no longer have the public transport infrastructure for it. And lots of workplaces are moving to out of town business parks that are harder to get to.

But, if you think it is that easy, then why don't you set an example and give up the car instead of cricising other people for not doing that?


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Jan 2009)

These are two different issues - owning a car and having somewhere to park it is not a right.

It is also not an excuse to inconvenience others. If you cannot park your car legally - then simply park it somewhere else - if you park on a pavement or block a dropped kerb , don't bleat when you get done!


----------



## snorri (8 Jan 2009)

purplepolly said:


> But, if you think it is that easy, then why don't you set an example and give up the car instead of cricising other people for not doing that?


Simoncc is not the culprit, the true injustice is the fact that people who cannot afford to own a car are paying through their taxes to provide the space for those who own cars and leave them on the street. This is all part of the subsidy to private motorists from HM government of which so many private motorists are in denial.


----------



## theclaud (9 Jan 2009)

snorri said:


> Simoncc is not the culprit, the true injustice is the fact that people who cannot afford to own a car are paying through their taxes to provide the space for those who own cars and leave them on the street. This is all part of the subsidy to private motorists from HM government of which so many private motorists are in denial.



Quite.

I love the idea of putting other stuff in parking meter spaces. If you didn't remove it after the time had elapsed, could you get fined, or would they just have to tow your garden away and impound it?


----------



## simoncc (10 Jan 2009)

> Simon,
> 
> I notice you're online, and don't like people not answer questions.
> 
> ...



Social housing has nothing to do with it. It is ludicrous for a council which openly states it wants to encourage more people to use public transport and bikes to encourage car ownership, and therefore car usage, by making it much more convenient for some people to own a car by providing them with reserved car parking spaces on the public road.

And such parking often has no regard for the income of the owner. The terraced houses on my street are mainly owned by young professionals who own shiny new BMWs, VWs, Saabs and that sort of car. Even though these people could easily afford a house with a drive in most parts of Manchester they freely chose to buy a terraced house in a more expensive part and hey presto the council gives them guaranteed parking for two cars at £30 per year!

About 400 yds away on the main road are some much cheaper, smaller terraced houses presumably owned by people of more modest means. As the road is a major route into Manchester it is double yellow lined for miles, and no residents in those terraces get cheap, guaranteed parking courtesy of the council. 

A couple of miles from me it is easily possible to pay £600,000 for a terraced house in a city where the average house price is about a quarter of that. And those residents get reserved parking at £30 per year too. Why?


----------



## ufkacbln (10 Jan 2009)

> That doesn't answer my question.
> 
> Let's say you were in social housing with no drive?
> 
> Or are the ruffians not allowed in cars?



If you look at car ownership, it is ethnic minorities, the elderly and..... the lower income groups. Those who are more likely to be in social housing who are least likely to own a car. Figures show that in "deprived areas" represeted b these groups car ownership is less than 40%


----------



## ufkacbln (10 Jan 2009)

Another thought.... This is a local road with no parming restrictions, yet the locas decide to park on what should be a grassy verge, but due to the illegal parking is a mudbath

now if you were to do this with a spade it would be criminal damage, but because it ws done witha vehicle it is acceptable?

Do these people have a right to destroy a public amenity?


----------



## dynohub (10 Jan 2009)

This may well be a (currently) unsolvable problem.

There are, given the exigences of modern life and the shortcomings and lack of integration of public transport, people who NEED cars.

There are also a lot of people who WANT cars.

These two groups are spread between those with drives and those without drives (including people in social housing - as some social housing is built with parking provision).

It seems to me that society should do what it can to reduce the number of people who NEED cars by encouraging home working, improving public transport, making affordable housing easier to find (and hence making it easier for those on lower incomes to move).

I doubt politicians have the bottle to address the problems though.

Those who WANT cars have a choice over housing - buy somewhere with parking, pay an economic fee for on-road parking (rather than a subsidised one), or don't have a car and use the alternatives - including of course cycling.

(I'll admit to barely needing a car, but I want one because I like the convenience and also enjoy driving. I have however paid of a house with parking. My decision)


----------



## simoncc (10 Jan 2009)

> yes it does. You claim that people without offroad parking should be dissuaded from having cars.
> 
> I asked you what you would do if you didn't have a drive, and gave the example of social housing, as those in it usually don't have a choice as to whether they have a drive or not.
> 
> ...



Poor people don't have cars. If you are poor you can't afford one, so where the poor park their cars is not an issue. Car ownership is not universal, and in many genuinely poor parts of Manchester it is possible to see streets of council houses with virtually no cars parked on the road or on the driveways. The reason is simple - most residents can't afford cars.

There is no reason for councils which claim to want people to use public transport to encourage car ownership and use by providing some people with extremely cheap personal parking spaces. 

Cheap, council provided, on-road parking spaces can only drive up the value of a property. This is bad news anyone wanting to get on the property ladder.


----------



## BentMikey (11 Jan 2009)

So simon, what woudl you do with your car if you had to live in one of these houses?


----------



## domd1979 (11 Jan 2009)

Simon - you seem to have a fixation that provision of on-street parking is somehow an incentive to car ownership. Since there is a finite amount of space on street, the amount of cars that can be accommodated on street is also finite. If anything the availability of plentiful off-road car parking underpins high levels of car ownership. Most houses with driveways can accommodate a minimum of two cars, often more. In those areas that only have on street parking, you'd be lucky if there were space for one car per household. The logical conclusion is that if you wanted to use residential parking provision to curb car ownership then off-road parking would have to be limited by planning guidance (I think some limits are in PPG13) and/or subject to an annual charge.


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Jan 2009)

The other problem is how far to go......

Reviewing "Parking complaints" in the local rag it appears that you should be entitled to a parking space (close to the entrance):

At home
At work
At the station
At the local Town Centre
At the supermarket / superstore
At the Hospital
At your friend's house
At the GP
At the Dentist
At the cinema
Ad infinitum........

So techincally each person needs a minimum of 8 - 10 parking spaces!

Where do we draw the line at this "entitlement"


----------



## purplepolly (11 Jan 2009)

domd1979 said:


> If anything the availability of plentiful off-road car parking underpins high levels of car ownership. Most houses with driveways can accommodate a minimum of two cars, often more. In those areas that only have on street parking, you'd be lucky if there were space for one car per household. The logical conclusion is that if you wanted to use residential parking provision to curb car ownership then off-road parking would have to be limited by planning guidance (I think some limits are in PPG13) and/or subject to an annual charge.



A very good point, in fact a lot of semis have provision for 3 or 4 cars (1 in garage, 2 on driveway, 1 on street), and have 3 or 4 cars - the poeple opposite me certainly do, while in the terraces on my side we are restricted by only having on-street parking and only have 1 car per house. Therefore the logical way to reduce car ownership would be to only build new houses without driveways so they only have the 1 on-street space and stop people turning front gardens into more driveway. 

As for subsidised parking spaces, if residents were charged a going rate for the space, then everyone else who parks on any public road for any length of time would also have to be charged. On my street, peak parking time is not at night when the residents cars are parked, but during daytime when people are visiting the local hospital or the church. Surely they should pay if we do? And then there's the people stopping to visit the bank or the local shops. They'll all have to pay just to make things fair, although it'll kill off the local shops.


----------



## LLB (11 Jan 2009)

> Rubbish.
> 
> The poor people around here go to the auctions on a Wednesday night and pick up a Rover 213 for £150. The council estates here are full of cars.
> 
> Now, are you going to answer my question?



Is that the 'pool cars' ?, mostly uninsured and being driven around by unlicensed drivers....


----------



## LLB (11 Jan 2009)

purplepolly said:


> A very good point, in fact a lot of semis have provision for 3 or 4 cars (1 in garage, 2 on driveway, 1 on street), and have 3 or 4 cars - the poeple opposite me certainly do, while in the terraces on my side we are restricted by only having on-street parking and only have 1 car per house. Therefore the logical way to reduce car ownership would be to only build new houses without driveways so they only have the 1 on-street space and stop people turning front gardens into more driveway.
> 
> As for subsidised parking spaces, if residents were charged a going rate for the space, then everyone else who parks on any public road for any length of time would also have to be charged. On my street, peak parking time is not at night when the residents cars are parked, but during daytime when people are visiting the local hospital or the church. Surely they should pay if we do? And then there's the people stopping to visit the bank or the local shops. They'll all have to pay just to make things fair, although it'll kill off the local shops.



Brilliant idea until the reality kicks in.

We have a block of flats called St Georges Gate in Cheltenham which was built without any provision for any parking (on the site of the Calcutta pub near the Railway station). The reality is that the owners start parking on the pavements outside other peoples houses, as well as the side roads adjacent to it, as it is surrounded by streets of terraces.

I think it fairly irresponsible to build such a large and tall block of flats which dominates the skyline and robs the neighbours of any privacy on such a small plot.

That is two brilliant ideas on the same plot which are just a pile of shyte in practice.


----------



## dynohub (12 Jan 2009)

> Rubbish.
> 
> The poor people around here go to the auctions on a Wednesday night and pick up a Rover 213 for £150. The council estates here are full of cars.
> 
> Now, are you going to answer my question?



Indeed! Also in many cities (I remember Bradford being cited as an example) the number of unregistered/uninsured/untaxed cars is so high there is no clear picture of what the level of car ownership is.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (12 Jan 2009)

Me and Ms RT have four cars on the road outside at the moment.:?: Two of them are for sale if anyone wants to buy a tired van and a dead Renault Clio.


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Jan 2009)

We had someone who decided to use the green near us as a car show room....

We used to phone him up and arrange to meet. Then when he got there, phone him back and suggest he would like to remove the cars whilst he was there. Between that and reporting the vehicles for tax, bald tyres etc he lasted about a week.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (13 Jan 2009)

Cunobelin said:


> We had someone who decided to use the green near us as a car show room....
> 
> We used to phone him up and arrange to meet. Then when he got there, phone him back and suggest he would like to remove the cars whilst he was there. Between that and reporting the vehicles for tax, bald tyres etc he lasted about a week.



 
I hasten to add that me and Ms RT aren't trying to go into business or anything. It's just that we've both bought new(er) cars recently (out of necessity, not trying to keep up with the neighbours or anything) and no one's bought the old ones yet.


----------



## LLB (13 Jan 2009)

Cunobelin said:


> We had someone who decided to use the green near us as a car show room....
> 
> We used to phone him up and arrange to meet. Then when he got there, phone him back and suggest he would like to remove the cars whilst he was there. Between that and reporting the vehicles for tax, bald tyres etc he lasted about a week.



If they were parked on private land, what was the problem with it ? - You come across as a bit of a NIMBY Cunobelin


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Jan 2009)

LLB said:


> If they were parked on private land, what was the problem with it ? - You come across as a bit of a NIMBY Cunobelin



Nope - it is supposed to be a local sports field..... but then again why should we let kids play football when we can sell cars on it?


----------



## BentMikey (16 Jan 2009)

Cunobelin has quite an evil turn of mind when he wants!!! OTOH I think that was totally justified. I wouldn't want some pikey car salesman blocking up our local sports field with all his vehicles.


----------

