Masked bikers warn drivers about spy cars (From Echo)

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.

mr_happy wrote:
Good on them. I stoped on a bus stop outside the Palace Theatre the other evning, to drop of some equipment. It is the only place to do this. The stress involved just looking out for the spy cars is unjust.

People should be able to get on with their lives without this stress.

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.

No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?

mr_happy wrote:
Good on them. I stoped on a bus stop outside the Palace Theatre the other evning, to drop of some equipment. It is the only place to do this. The stress involved just looking out for the spy cars is unjust.

People should be able to get on with their lives without this stress.

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

mr_happy wrote:
Good on them. I stoped on a bus stop outside the Palace Theatre the other evning, to drop of some equipment. It is the only place to do this. The stress involved just looking out for the spy cars is unjust.

People should be able to get on with their lives without this stress.

Or you could have carried the equipment a bit further.

Illegal parking is laziness and nothing but. People need to learn to use their legs to walk a little bit further.

I support these parking enforcement vehicles 100%.

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.

No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?

People don't learn not to park illegally by being 'tipped off'. It's the same mentality as warning drivers of police speed checks, all it does is enable the speeders to continue their dangerous driving.
All this will do is enable illegal parkers to continue parking illegally, just elsewhere.

I wonder if anyone here would be applauding these vigilantes if they were tipping off muggers to the presence of the police?

heartbeat wrote:
"Well done chaps. Excellent. As for Andrew Lewis from SBC. These cars show an attitude towards drivers and the public that puts people off the town. How did we allow this Orwellian world to take hold? A line needs to be drawn. These cars are that line. British law has traditionally been enforced by consent not machines."

Absolutely agree! Now maybe Mr. Lewis will understand how "intimidating" it is for motorists to have to deal with the "robotic", non-communicative spy cars.

Instances such as the person who had to leave an injured bird in the road for fear of getting "another" fine.....the motorist who received a fine for changing his tyre even though to carry on driving would have endangered himself and other road users....my own experiences of having to make an elderly relative in their 80s struggle to get their wheelie walker out of my car boot as I drop them near enough to the post office for them to be able to walk a little. I am presenting no hazard to other motorists or pedestrians whatsoever and the process takes me less than a minute but as well all know that is long enough to receive a fine from these highly intimidating robots. Yes I think wearing the masks and surveillance of the spy car drivers' activities are an EXCELLENT way of giving back tit for tat. Warning other unsuspecting motorists is wonderful too - they should be honoured in the next Queen's list for their caring services to their community.

All 9 of me wrote:
hardly 'vigilante ' masks

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.

No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?

People don't learn not to park illegally by being 'tipped off'. It's the same mentality as warning drivers of police speed checks, all it does is enable the speeders to continue their dangerous driving. All this will do is enable illegal parkers to continue parking illegally, just elsewhere. I wonder if anyone here would be applauding these vigilantes if they were tipping off muggers to the presence of the police?

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.

No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?

People don't learn not to park illegally by being 'tipped off'. It's the same mentality as warning drivers of police speed checks, all it does is enable the speeders to continue their dangerous driving. All this will do is enable illegal parkers to continue parking illegally, just elsewhere. I wonder if anyone here would be applauding these vigilantes if they were tipping off muggers to the presence of the police?

Muggers?-Hardly the same thing but then why let reason get in the way of your opinion.
.
Parking rules are meant to be first and foremost about road / pavement safety. These guys are getting illegal parkers to move on quickly. That can only be a good thing. Does the spy car move an illegally parked car? No - why bother moving it when you can fine it and leave it there.

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.

No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?

People don't learn not to park illegally by being 'tipped off'. It's the same mentality as warning drivers of police speed checks, all it does is enable the speeders to continue their dangerous driving. All this will do is enable illegal parkers to continue parking illegally, just elsewhere. I wonder if anyone here would be applauding these vigilantes if they were tipping off muggers to the presence of the police?

Muggers?-Hardly the same thing but then why let reason get in the way of your opinion. . Parking rules are meant to be first and foremost about road / pavement safety. These guys are getting illegal parkers to move on quickly. That can only be a good thing. Does the spy car move an illegally parked car? No - why bother moving it when you can fine it and leave it there.

What the parking enforcement car does is ensure a fine is issued and the illegal parker thinks twice before parking illegally again. Tipping them off does not achieve that.

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.

No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?

People don't learn not to park illegally by being 'tipped off'. It's the same mentality as warning drivers of police speed checks, all it does is enable the speeders to continue their dangerous driving. All this will do is enable illegal parkers to continue parking illegally, just elsewhere. I wonder if anyone here would be applauding these vigilantes if they were tipping off muggers to the presence of the police?

Muggers?-Hardly the same thing but then why let reason get in the way of your opinion. . Parking rules are meant to be first and foremost about road / pavement safety. These guys are getting illegal parkers to move on quickly. That can only be a good thing. Does the spy car move an illegally parked car? No - why bother moving it when you can fine it and leave it there.

What the parking enforcement car does is ensure a fine is issued and the illegal parker thinks twice before parking illegally again. Tipping them off does not achieve that.

Do you think that a 25 or even 50 pound fine is going to deter someone who can afford to buy and run £50,000 worth of Range Rover? Absolute rubbish. Most of them will just pass it on as expenses anyway.
.
What you have just proved with your last is that the spy car is about revenue not road safety.
.

meldrew84 wrote:
And perhaps Mr Wells should look into premises with parking facilities instead of encouraging illegal parking just to profit himself!

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.

Joe Hune wrote:

meldrew84 wrote:
And perhaps Mr Wells should look into premises with parking facilities instead of encouraging illegal parking just to profit himself!

Just shows what a great business man Mr Wells is to pick a premises without parking!

The lights are on, but obviously nobody was home when he thought opening a shop in this location without any parking was good!

So because I haven't got anything else to do Mr Wells thinks he will invite a load of sad old bikers to Southend to do his dirty work for him!

Get a life Mr Wells!!

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.

No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?

People don't learn not to park illegally by being 'tipped off'. It's the same mentality as warning drivers of police speed checks, all it does is enable the speeders to continue their dangerous driving. All this will do is enable illegal parkers to continue parking illegally, just elsewhere. I wonder if anyone here would be applauding these vigilantes if they were tipping off muggers to the presence of the police?

Muggers?-Hardly the same thing but then why let reason get in the way of your opinion. . Parking rules are meant to be first and foremost about road / pavement safety. These guys are getting illegal parkers to move on quickly. That can only be a good thing. Does the spy car move an illegally parked car? No - why bother moving it when you can fine it and leave it there.

What the parking enforcement car does is ensure a fine is issued and the illegal parker thinks twice before parking illegally again. Tipping them off does not achieve that.

Do you think that a 25 or even 50 pound fine is going to deter someone who can afford to buy and run £50,000 worth of Range Rover? Absolute rubbish. Most of them will just pass it on as expenses anyway. . What you have just proved with your last is that the spy car is about revenue not road safety. .

The parking enforcement vehicles only fine those who are illegally parked. That's all good in my book. Very few illegally parked cars I see are high-end w@nkpanzers as you suggest. They are ordinary saloons. You raise a good point though. I would fully support illegal parking becoming an endorsable offence. Start slapping points on peoples' licences for it. That would be a stronger deterrent.

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.

No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?

People don't learn not to park illegally by being 'tipped off'. It's the same mentality as warning drivers of police speed checks, all it does is enable the speeders to continue their dangerous driving. All this will do is enable illegal parkers to continue parking illegally, just elsewhere. I wonder if anyone here would be applauding these vigilantes if they were tipping off muggers to the presence of the police?

Muggers?-Hardly the same thing but then why let reason get in the way of your opinion. . Parking rules are meant to be first and foremost about road / pavement safety. These guys are getting illegal parkers to move on quickly. That can only be a good thing. Does the spy car move an illegally parked car? No - why bother moving it when you can fine it and leave it there.

What the parking enforcement car does is ensure a fine is issued and the illegal parker thinks twice before parking illegally again. Tipping them off does not achieve that.

Do you think that a 25 or even 50 pound fine is going to deter someone who can afford to buy and run £50,000 worth of Range Rover? Absolute rubbish. Most of them will just pass it on as expenses anyway. . What you have just proved with your last is that the spy car is about revenue not road safety. .

The parking enforcement vehicles only fine those who are illegally parked. That's all good in my book. Very few illegally parked cars I see are high-end w@nkpanzers as you suggest. They are ordinary saloons. You raise a good point though. I would fully support illegal parking becoming an endorsable offence. Start slapping points on peoples' licences for it. That would be a stronger deterrent.

I would agree with that.
.
So long as the meaningless fine is dropped to remove the financial motivation and we can all see that it is about road safety.

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.

No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?

People don't learn not to park illegally by being 'tipped off'. It's the same mentality as warning drivers of police speed checks, all it does is enable the speeders to continue their dangerous driving. All this will do is enable illegal parkers to continue parking illegally, just elsewhere. I wonder if anyone here would be applauding these vigilantes if they were tipping off muggers to the presence of the police?

Muggers?-Hardly the same thing but then why let reason get in the way of your opinion. . Parking rules are meant to be first and foremost about road / pavement safety. These guys are getting illegal parkers to move on quickly. That can only be a good thing. Does the spy car move an illegally parked car? No - why bother moving it when you can fine it and leave it there.

What the parking enforcement car does is ensure a fine is issued and the illegal parker thinks twice before parking illegally again. Tipping them off does not achieve that.

Do you think that a 25 or even 50 pound fine is going to deter someone who can afford to buy and run £50,000 worth of Range Rover? Absolute rubbish. Most of them will just pass it on as expenses anyway. . What you have just proved with your last is that the spy car is about revenue not road safety. .

The parking enforcement vehicles only fine those who are illegally parked. That's all good in my book. Very few illegally parked cars I see are high-end w@nkpanzers as you suggest. They are ordinary saloons. You raise a good point though. I would fully support illegal parking becoming an endorsable offence. Start slapping points on peoples' licences for it. That would be a stronger deterrent.

I would agree with that. . So long as the meaningless fine is dropped to remove the financial motivation and we can all see that it is about road safety.

No. Endorsement AND fine, like most other traffic violations. What are you not getting? The only people being fined are those who break the law. There is nothing wrong with that. It is easily avoidable by parking legally. Or are you saying we should be soft on lawbreakers?

emcee wrote:

Joe Hune wrote:

meldrew84 wrote:
And perhaps Mr Wells should look into premises with parking facilities instead of encouraging illegal parking just to profit himself!

Just shows what a great business man Mr Wells is to pick a premises without parking!

The lights are on, but obviously nobody was home when he thought opening a shop in this location without any parking was good!

So because I haven't got anything else to do Mr Wells thinks he will invite a load of sad old bikers to Southend to do his dirty work for him!

Get a life Mr Wells!!

Maybe Mr Wells had the premises long before the parking restrictions were as they are.

Joe Hune wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.

Totally agree! If I was driving and I constantly had 3 or 4 bikers on my tail it could cause a lack of concentration and an accident to happen! I can't believe an Independant Councillor is backing this behaviour. So sad how some people will do anything to get at the Conservatives!

r6keith wrote:
Alekhine said "The bike L-Plate does not mean the bikers experience can be measured in hours. A bike can be run on an L-Plate for years. My local pizza delivery bike is an L-Plate but the rider is no learner (again its a shared bike). Its illegal to ride a bike displaying L plates if you are a full licence holder , if you have not passed a test regardless of time riding you are by discription a learner.

They are though! They’ve been used by protestors (Occupy movement)/vigilante groups and the worldwide hacking group anonymous for years! I associate them with anonymous mostly

The Cater Wood Creeper wrote:

They are though! They’ve been used by protestors (Occupy movement)/vigilante groups and the worldwide hacking group anonymous for years! I associate them with anonymous mostly

bit difficult to remain 'anonymous' when you're riding a motorbike which presumably has a registration plate clearly visible.....

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.

No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?

People don't learn not to park illegally by being 'tipped off'. It's the same mentality as warning drivers of police speed checks, all it does is enable the speeders to continue their dangerous driving. All this will do is enable illegal parkers to continue parking illegally, just elsewhere. I wonder if anyone here would be applauding these vigilantes if they were tipping off muggers to the presence of the police?

Muggers?-Hardly the same thing but then why let reason get in the way of your opinion. . Parking rules are meant to be first and foremost about road / pavement safety. These guys are getting illegal parkers to move on quickly. That can only be a good thing. Does the spy car move an illegally parked car? No - why bother moving it when you can fine it and leave it there.

What the parking enforcement car does is ensure a fine is issued and the illegal parker thinks twice before parking illegally again. Tipping them off does not achieve that.

Do you think that a 25 or even 50 pound fine is going to deter someone who can afford to buy and run £50,000 worth of Range Rover? Absolute rubbish. Most of them will just pass it on as expenses anyway. . What you have just proved with your last is that the spy car is about revenue not road safety. .

The parking enforcement vehicles only fine those who are illegally parked. That's all good in my book. Very few illegally parked cars I see are high-end w@nkpanzers as you suggest. They are ordinary saloons. You raise a good point though. I would fully support illegal parking becoming an endorsable offence. Start slapping points on peoples' licences for it. That would be a stronger deterrent.

I would agree with that. . So long as the meaningless fine is dropped to remove the financial motivation and we can all see that it is about road safety.

No. Endorsement AND fine, like most other traffic violations. What are you not getting? The only people being fined are those who break the law. There is nothing wrong with that. It is easily avoidable by parking legally. Or are you saying we should be soft on lawbreakers?

Points on licence is not soft on lawbreakers and it is the only way that wil change behaviour. The fine as it stands is pointless. It says to people, Park illegally if you can afford it, and then leave the car there all day as you are not going to get fined again. Thats not good for road safety (which is the reason for law), so what is the point in maintaining the fine if your going to give points and then remove the car from the road?
.
If the council are really that strapped for cash they sould look at all the cyclists who break every rule in the book.

meldrew84 wrote:

emcee wrote:

Joe Hune wrote:

meldrew84 wrote: And perhaps Mr Wells should look into premises with parking facilities instead of encouraging illegal parking just to profit himself!

Just shows what a great business man Mr Wells is to pick a premises without parking! The lights are on, but obviously nobody was home when he thought opening a shop in this location without any parking was good! So because I haven't got anything else to do Mr Wells thinks he will invite a load of sad old bikers to Southend to do his dirty work for him! Get a life Mr Wells!!

Maybe Mr Wells had the premises long before the parking restrictions were as they are.

The parking along Woodgrange is hardly restricted anyway! There's multiple spaces along the stretch of road where his shop is and usually i only see the wardens ensuring people don't out stay their welcome in the parking spots, so they are effectively trying to help him by ensuring the spots are regularly free for multiple customers to come and go as opposed to one or two selfish drivers hogging the spot all day! Not to mention there is parking on the side streets. What this buffoon has failed to recognise is the cars and wardens are doing his business a favour by making sure people don't take the spot for themselves all day! Or does he not realise people from the train station will be keen to hog the spots all day, before his custom even attempts an arrival if allowed to do so! I have a suspicion the man has not much else to do apart from make a feeble attempt at getting his business advertised for free in the local paper in an attempt at luring fellow supporters to his shop. Just a thought......

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote: Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.

No - helping the spy car to prevent traffic offences! I'snt that the spy cars job?

People don't learn not to park illegally by being 'tipped off'. It's the same mentality as warning drivers of police speed checks, all it does is enable the speeders to continue their dangerous driving. All this will do is enable illegal parkers to continue parking illegally, just elsewhere. I wonder if anyone here would be applauding these vigilantes if they were tipping off muggers to the presence of the police?

Muggers?-Hardly the same thing but then why let reason get in the way of your opinion. . Parking rules are meant to be first and foremost about road / pavement safety. These guys are getting illegal parkers to move on quickly. That can only be a good thing. Does the spy car move an illegally parked car? No - why bother moving it when you can fine it and leave it there.

What the parking enforcement car does is ensure a fine is issued and the illegal parker thinks twice before parking illegally again. Tipping them off does not achieve that.

Do you think that a 25 or even 50 pound fine is going to deter someone who can afford to buy and run £50,000 worth of Range Rover? Absolute rubbish. Most of them will just pass it on as expenses anyway. . What you have just proved with your last is that the spy car is about revenue not road safety. .

The parking enforcement vehicles only fine those who are illegally parked. That's all good in my book. Very few illegally parked cars I see are high-end w@nkpanzers as you suggest. They are ordinary saloons. You raise a good point though. I would fully support illegal parking becoming an endorsable offence. Start slapping points on peoples' licences for it. That would be a stronger deterrent.

I would agree with that. . So long as the meaningless fine is dropped to remove the financial motivation and we can all see that it is about road safety.

No. Endorsement AND fine, like most other traffic violations. What are you not getting? The only people being fined are those who break the law. There is nothing wrong with that. It is easily avoidable by parking legally. Or are you saying we should be soft on lawbreakers?

Points on licence is not soft on lawbreakers and it is the only way that wil change behaviour. The fine as it stands is pointless. It says to people, Park illegally if you can afford it, and then leave the car there all day as you are not going to get fined again. Thats not good for road safety (which is the reason for law), so what is the point in maintaining the fine if your going to give points and then remove the car from the road? . If the council are really that strapped for cash they sould look at all the cyclists who break every rule in the book.

Gosh, it took you five whole posts to come up with that tired old cliche. Rule #1 of the Alekhine rules of discussion: If you can't defend the indefensible try to deflect the argument onto another group.

lost_scotsman wrote:
There have been a few stories about this car and the people opposed to it because apparently it gives out fines to illegaly parked vehicles when a traffic warden on foot could do the same. But I really don't see the point or the difference it makes. If the traffic enforcement are on foot or in a vehicle does it matter? Please could some one make clear to me the difference between getting a fine from a enforcement car or foot warden??? In the times when we are in facing cuts in council funds etc etc. Surely it makes much more sense for our council to pay for a few cars to cover a larger area than pay for lots and lots of foot wardens to each cover small areas. People seem to be miffed because they are being caught parking illegally? surely if you take the risk then you have to accept if you are caught. I see no argument, if there are parking restrictions then they need to be enforced, doesnt matter by what means it is enforced does it? I live in Eastwood North road. you may know the Co-op where there is some parking then a bus stop (for buses) the camera car comes 3 maybe 4 times a day because for some reason drivers feel it is ok to park in the bus stop, stopping buses from safely stopping at the kurb side. I say well done camera car, if people have so little consideration when they park then they deserve a fine.

The Bald Eagle wrote:
I am one of these so called "sad" "muppets" who has taken to assisting with public safety and traffic flow in your town. As is admitted in the Echo's article by Andrew Lewis, director for enterprise, tourism and the environment at Southend Council , neither myself nor my colleagues are doing anything illegal.

It wasn't us who told him that, it would have been the police. That would be the same police who were called by APCOA when we started assisting the spy cars with their visibility last week.

I have a question for our detractors on here, most of whom I suspect are employed by the council's PR (spin) department.

My colleagues and I have answered David Cameron's call to join his "Big Society" and we are holding public servants to account for their actions.

So my question to our detractors is this. If we stay within the law and assist with public safety and traffic flow, why are you so keen for us to stop?

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

The Bald Eagle wrote: I am one of these so called "sad" "muppets" who has taken to assisting with public safety and traffic flow in your town. As is admitted in the Echo's article by Andrew Lewis, director for enterprise, tourism and the environment at Southend Council , neither myself nor my colleagues are doing anything illegal. It wasn't us who told him that, it would have been the police. That would be the same police who were called by APCOA when we started assisting the spy cars with their visibility last week. I have a question for our detractors on here, most of whom I suspect are employed by the council's PR (spin) department. My colleagues and I have answered David Cameron's call to join his "Big Society" and we are holding public servants to account for their actions. So my question to our detractors is this. If we stay within the law and assist with public safety and traffic flow, why are you so keen for us to stop?

Because there is no place for vigilante thugs on Southend's streets. We don't need a bunch of morons riding around our town deliberately intimidating people going about their lawful business.

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

The Bald Eagle wrote:
I am one of these so called "sad" "muppets" who has taken to assisting with public safety and traffic flow in your town. As is admitted in the Echo's article by Andrew Lewis, director for enterprise, tourism and the environment at Southend Council , neither myself nor my colleagues are doing anything illegal.

It wasn't us who told him that, it would have been the police. That would be the same police who were called by APCOA when we started assisting the spy cars with their visibility last week.

I have a question for our detractors on here, most of whom I suspect are employed by the council's PR (spin) department.

My colleagues and I have answered David Cameron's call to join his "Big Society" and we are holding public servants to account for their actions.

So my question to our detractors is this. If we stay within the law and assist with public safety and traffic flow, why are you so keen for us to stop?

Because there is no place for vigilante thugs on Southend's streets.
We don't need a bunch of morons riding around our town deliberately intimidating people going about their lawful business.

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.

lost_scotsman wrote:
plus you think this car is bad. Last year I was in New York. (i witnessed for myself) They dont hand around taking photos in a little white car. They cruise round in pick ups with a crane on the back and just tow your illegally parked car away, they dont leave a note or anything, i guess you have to ring the police or something!!! no messing about. Park illegaly then accept when you have been caught.

V 4 Vengance wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.

I think you will find these Scam cam cars have all ready knocked over one small child. I also think you will find that some of the staff who drive these cars are extremely rude to the public making obscene gestures and swearing at them. I am all for this type of public assistance. Surely the object of the exercise is to improve road safety. Covert issuing of PCN's is all about raising revenue and nothing to do with safety. If parking control is about road safety or traffic flow, how does allowing the offence to be committed whilst filming it improve the situation? The answer is that it does not help at all. A more visible and effective deterrent is a Parking Warden or CEO as they are called these days. So let's stop trying to pull the wool over any ones eyes IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

V 4 Vengance wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.

I think you will find these Scam cam cars have all ready knocked over one small child. I also think you will find that some of the staff who drive these cars are extremely rude to the public making obscene gestures and swearing at them. I am all for this type of public assistance. Surely the object of the exercise is to improve road safety. Covert issuing of PCN's is all about raising revenue and nothing to do with safety. If parking control is about road safety or traffic flow, how does allowing the offence to be committed whilst filming it improve the situation? The answer is that it does not help at all. A more visible and effective deterrent is a Parking Warden or CEO as they are called these days. So let's stop trying to pull the wool over any ones eyes IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!

They only take money from people who think they can flout the law by parking illegally. Park legally and you won't get fined. It's a no-brainier.

You're just whining because now it's a lot easier to catch illegal parking.

If you really support safety then report illegal parking to the council. But you don't support safety, you're supporting lawbreaking by aiding and abetting the lawbreakers.

You're no different than idiots who help keep dangerous drivers on the roads by warning oncoming speeders of police speed checkpoints.

You seem to think you're some kind of heroes, you're nothing of the sort. You're behaving like whiny school kids who've had their toys taken away.

Nigel Wise wrote:
Lefty

These so called 'safety' cars were responsible for running down a child in Southend:

http://www.echo-news

.co.uk/news/9178252.

Young_boy_hit_by_CCT

V_car_on_Southend_se

afront/

Therefore it is YOU that 'supports lawbreaking.'

'Lawbreaking' is something that these vehicles do on a regular basis :

http://www.echo-news

.co.uk/news/local_ne

ws/southend/9659544.

Southend_man_s_landm

ark_spy_car_victory/



The issuing of tickets by the use of these vehicles in areas where CEO's can freely and easily patrol on foot is against the statutory guidance which Authorities must have regard to. Clearly in Southend there is no regard to this.

In Richmond upon Thames it was decided that the use of these vehicles was not necessary. They were removed from our roads:

http://cabnet.richmo

nd.gov.uk/documents/

s29394/Item%2012%20-

%20Fair%20Parking%20

Review.pdf

We have had a 'Fair Parking' enforcement policy here since that time. There have been no reported incidents of any traffic problems or saftey events since this was done over a year ago.

Businesses are now recovering. Lord True's policy of 'Fair Parking' and working with small businesses to encourage vibrant local shopping streets has now started to bear fruit.

Prior to this the 'draconian enforcement' by these 'spy car' vehicles drove some shopkeepers and small business to the wall.

Refer to this footage at post # 7 at 1:40 onwards:

http://notomob.co.uk

/discussions/index.p

hp/topic,1281.msg107

18/topicseen.html#ms

g10718

It will be necessary to copy and paste the above links into your browser.

Please could some one make clear to me the difference between getting a fine from a enforcement car or foot warden???

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.

Nigel Wise wrote:
Quote from lefty cyclist:

"Check your facts. The child ran into the road from between two vans parked illegally on the pavement. It would have been difficult for most drivers to avoid hitting him."

Rubbish the 'safety' car struck the child. No safety car - no accident simples.

You seem to have a lot of inside knowledge regarding the 'facts'. Where did you get these from?

When I first learnt to be a 'cyclist' and later to drive a car I was taught to be very cautious when passing parked vehicles because children might run out from between them. This is of particular relevance on a seafront with a 20 mph speed limit.

Another quote from 'Lefty':

"I have been viewing your web site for a couple of days
What I see are a bunch of people who are full of themselves bragging about their intimidatory tactics towards people trying to do their jobs and earn a living."

We have no problem with anyone doing their jobs lawfully. We assist them lawfully in doing their jobs.

The job of an enforcement officer is to achieve 100% compliance and issue no tickets. Parking Policy and Enforcement Traffic Management Act 2004: "The objective of CPE should be for 100% compliance, with no penalty charges."

We do not intimidate anyone. If we were intimidating CEO's we would be subject to the laws of the land. The Police having been called and their time wasted by APOCA could find nothing wrong with what we were doing.

KusariNinja

I can confirm that Mr Wells is not our leader. In fact we do not have a leader.

Nigel Wise wrote:
Quote from lefty cyclist:

"Check your facts. The child ran into the road from between two vans parked illegally on the pavement. It would have been difficult for most drivers to avoid hitting him."

Rubbish the 'safety' car struck the child. No safety car - no accident simples.

You seem to have a lot of inside knowledge regarding the 'facts'. Where did you get these from?

When I first learnt to be a 'cyclist' and later to drive a car I was taught to be very cautious when passing parked vehicles because children might run out from between them. This is of particular relevance on a seafront with a 20 mph speed limit.

Another quote from 'Lefty':

"I have been viewing your web site for a couple of days
What I see are a bunch of people who are full of themselves bragging about their intimidatory tactics towards people trying to do their jobs and earn a living."

We have no problem with anyone doing their jobs lawfully. We assist them lawfully in doing their jobs.

The job of an enforcement officer is to achieve 100% compliance and issue no tickets. Parking Policy and Enforcement Traffic Management Act 2004: "The objective of CPE should be for 100% compliance, with no penalty charges."

We do not intimidate anyone. If we were intimidating CEO's we would be subject to the laws of the land. The Police having been called and their time wasted by APOCA could find nothing wrong with what we were doing.

KusariNinja

I can confirm that Mr Wells is not our leader. In fact we do not have a leader.

Joe Hune wrote:

meldrew84 wrote:

emcee wrote:

Joe Hune wrote:

meldrew84 wrote: And perhaps Mr Wells should look into premises with parking facilities instead of encouraging illegal parking just to profit himself!

Just shows what a great business man Mr Wells is to pick a premises without parking! The lights are on, but obviously nobody was home when he thought opening a shop in this location without any parking was good! So because I haven't got anything else to do Mr Wells thinks he will invite a load of sad old bikers to Southend to do his dirty work for him! Get a life Mr Wells!!

Maybe Mr Wells had the premises long before the parking restrictions were as they are.

The parking along Woodgrange is hardly restricted anyway! There's multiple spaces along the stretch of road where his shop is and usually i only see the wardens ensuring people don't out stay their welcome in the parking spots, so they are effectively trying to help him by ensuring the spots are regularly free for multiple customers to come and go as opposed to one or two selfish drivers hogging the spot all day! Not to mention there is parking on the side streets. What this buffoon has failed to recognise is the cars and wardens are doing his business a favour by making sure people don't take the spot for themselves all day! Or does he not realise people from the train station will be keen to hog the spots all day, before his custom even attempts an arrival if allowed to do so! I have a suspicion the man has not much else to do apart from make a feeble attempt at getting his business advertised for free in the local paper in an attempt at luring fellow supporters to his shop. Just a thought......

So true!

This idiot just wants his name in the paper as he knows the ECHO struggle for proper news and will print anything!

When Mr Peter Watkins and Mr Bob Wells had their mug shots in the ECHO, you could tell they hadn't got an once of brains between them!

The more the spaces are kept clear, the more customers will pop in a give you business, so well done the Wardens!

But if these two Buffoons encourage their lazy customers to park in the Bus Stop on Woodgrange Drive, that is different.

Max Impact wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

The Bald Eagle wrote: I am one of these so called "sad" "muppets" who has taken to assisting with public safety and traffic flow in your town. As is admitted in the Echo's article by Andrew Lewis, director for enterprise, tourism and the environment at Southend Council , neither myself nor my colleagues are doing anything illegal. It wasn't us who told him that, it would have been the police. That would be the same police who were called by APCOA when we started assisting the spy cars with their visibility last week. I have a question for our detractors on here, most of whom I suspect are employed by the council's PR (spin) department. My colleagues and I have answered David Cameron's call to join his "Big Society" and we are holding public servants to account for their actions. So my question to our detractors is this. If we stay within the law and assist with public safety and traffic flow, why are you so keen for us to stop?

Because there is no place for vigilante thugs on Southend's streets. We don't need a bunch of morons riding around our town deliberately intimidating people going about their lawful business.

Well said lefty.

Wonder if these "vigilantes" would be happy if somebody was to follow them round all day watching their every move, bet they would be the first to moan about it.

As for using the masks probably improves their looks, if there is a female driver of the CCTV car would they still use the mask? how would they like somebody to follow their wife/partner whist wearing a face mask, would they find it intimidating or would be be OK for us to do.

emcee wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

The Bald Eagle wrote: I am one of these so called "sad" "muppets" who has taken to assisting with public safety and traffic flow in your town. As is admitted in the Echo's article by Andrew Lewis, director for enterprise, tourism and the environment at Southend Council , neither myself nor my colleagues are doing anything illegal. It wasn't us who told him that, it would have been the police. That would be the same police who were called by APCOA when we started assisting the spy cars with their visibility last week. I have a question for our detractors on here, most of whom I suspect are employed by the council's PR (spin) department. My colleagues and I have answered David Cameron's call to join his "Big Society" and we are holding public servants to account for their actions. So my question to our detractors is this. If we stay within the law and assist with public safety and traffic flow, why are you so keen for us to stop?

Because there is no place for vigilante thugs on Southend's streets. We don't need a bunch of morons riding around our town deliberately intimidating people going about their lawful business.

Well said lefty.

Wonder if these "vigilantes" would be happy if somebody was to follow them round all day watching their every move, bet they would be the first to moan about it.

As for using the masks probably improves their looks, if there is a female driver of the CCTV car would they still use the mask? how would they like somebody to follow their wife/partner whist wearing a face mask, would they find it intimidating or would be be OK for us to do.

No it was not well said.
I have no opinion on the use of spy cars either way but as I see it these bikers are far from "thugs". They are merely excercising their right to ride the road making other road users aware of certain other "road users". Where is the thuggery in that. Also, riding in front of or behind another vehicle, as long as it is legal, is not intimidation. The council and, possibly, the spy car operators (although we only have Andrew Lewis word for that), are just trying to make excuses for the effect of gaining public sympathy.
It seems the problem that lies with spy cars is that they cannot judge each circumstance on it's merits. There are many instances where blue badge users, people with punctures, legal loading/unloading etc. have all been ticketed using spy cars because theirs is a "catch all", ask questions later, policy. Whereas, a traffic warden can, as per recommendations, use their discretion at the time of the incident.
Nobody is denying that illegal parkers should be punished but should we not be using methods to target the genuinely illegal parkers. If you cast a big net with small holes you will catch far more of those who are innocent than you would if you specifically targeted those who are not.

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

emcee wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

The Bald Eagle wrote: I am one of these so called "sad" "muppets" who has taken to assisting with public safety and traffic flow in your town. As is admitted in the Echo's article by Andrew Lewis, director for enterprise, tourism and the environment at Southend Council , neither myself nor my colleagues are doing anything illegal. It wasn't us who told him that, it would have been the police. That would be the same police who were called by APCOA when we started assisting the spy cars with their visibility last week. I have a question for our detractors on here, most of whom I suspect are employed by the council's PR (spin) department. My colleagues and I have answered David Cameron's call to join his "Big Society" and we are holding public servants to account for their actions. So my question to our detractors is this. If we stay within the law and assist with public safety and traffic flow, why are you so keen for us to stop?

Because there is no place for vigilante thugs on Southend's streets. We don't need a bunch of morons riding around our town deliberately intimidating people going about their lawful business.

Well said lefty. Wonder if these "vigilantes" would be happy if somebody was to follow them round all day watching their every move, bet they would be the first to moan about it. As for using the masks probably improves their looks, if there is a female driver of the CCTV car would they still use the mask? how would they like somebody to follow their wife/partner whist wearing a face mask, would they find it intimidating or would be be OK for us to do.

No it was not well said. I have no opinion on the use of spy cars either way but as I see it these bikers are far from "thugs". They are merely excercising their right to ride the road making other road users aware of certain other "road users". Where is the thuggery in that. Also, riding in front of or behind another vehicle, as long as it is legal, is not intimidation. The council and, possibly, the spy car operators (although we only have Andrew Lewis word for that), are just trying to make excuses for the effect of gaining public sympathy. It seems the problem that lies with spy cars is that they cannot judge each circumstance on it's merits. There are many instances where blue badge users, people with punctures, legal loading/unloading etc. have all been ticketed using spy cars because theirs is a "catch all", ask questions later, policy. Whereas, a traffic warden can, as per recommendations, use their discretion at the time of the incident. Nobody is denying that illegal parkers should be punished but should we not be using methods to target the genuinely illegal parkers. If you cast a big net with small holes you will catch far more of those who are innocent than you would if you specifically targeted those who are not.

There is an appeals procedure.

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

emcee wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

The Bald Eagle wrote: I am one of these so called "sad" "muppets" who has taken to assisting with public safety and traffic flow in your town. As is admitted in the Echo's article by Andrew Lewis, director for enterprise, tourism and the environment at Southend Council , neither myself nor my colleagues are doing anything illegal. It wasn't us who told him that, it would have been the police. That would be the same police who were called by APCOA when we started assisting the spy cars with their visibility last week. I have a question for our detractors on here, most of whom I suspect are employed by the council's PR (spin) department. My colleagues and I have answered David Cameron's call to join his "Big Society" and we are holding public servants to account for their actions. So my question to our detractors is this. If we stay within the law and assist with public safety and traffic flow, why are you so keen for us to stop?

Because there is no place for vigilante thugs on Southend's streets. We don't need a bunch of morons riding around our town deliberately intimidating people going about their lawful business.

Well said lefty. Wonder if these "vigilantes" would be happy if somebody was to follow them round all day watching their every move, bet they would be the first to moan about it. As for using the masks probably improves their looks, if there is a female driver of the CCTV car would they still use the mask? how would they like somebody to follow their wife/partner whist wearing a face mask, would they find it intimidating or would be be OK for us to do.

No it was not well said. I have no opinion on the use of spy cars either way but as I see it these bikers are far from "thugs". They are merely excercising their right to ride the road making other road users aware of certain other "road users". Where is the thuggery in that. Also, riding in front of or behind another vehicle, as long as it is legal, is not intimidation. The council and, possibly, the spy car operators (although we only have Andrew Lewis word for that), are just trying to make excuses for the effect of gaining public sympathy. It seems the problem that lies with spy cars is that they cannot judge each circumstance on it's merits. There are many instances where blue badge users, people with punctures, legal loading/unloading etc. have all been ticketed using spy cars because theirs is a "catch all", ask questions later, policy. Whereas, a traffic warden can, as per recommendations, use their discretion at the time of the incident. Nobody is denying that illegal parkers should be punished but should we not be using methods to target the genuinely illegal parkers. If you cast a big net with small holes you will catch far more of those who are innocent than you would if you specifically targeted those who are not.

There is an appeals procedure.

So thats guilty until proven innocent then?

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

emcee wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

The Bald Eagle wrote: I am one of these so called "sad" "muppets" who has taken to assisting with public safety and traffic flow in your town. As is admitted in the Echo's article by Andrew Lewis, director for enterprise, tourism and the environment at Southend Council , neither myself nor my colleagues are doing anything illegal. It wasn't us who told him that, it would have been the police. That would be the same police who were called by APCOA when we started assisting the spy cars with their visibility last week. I have a question for our detractors on here, most of whom I suspect are employed by the council's PR (spin) department. My colleagues and I have answered David Cameron's call to join his "Big Society" and we are holding public servants to account for their actions. So my question to our detractors is this. If we stay within the law and assist with public safety and traffic flow, why are you so keen for us to stop?

Because there is no place for vigilante thugs on Southend's streets. We don't need a bunch of morons riding around our town deliberately intimidating people going about their lawful business.

Well said lefty. Wonder if these "vigilantes" would be happy if somebody was to follow them round all day watching their every move, bet they would be the first to moan about it. As for using the masks probably improves their looks, if there is a female driver of the CCTV car would they still use the mask? how would they like somebody to follow their wife/partner whist wearing a face mask, would they find it intimidating or would be be OK for us to do.

No it was not well said. I have no opinion on the use of spy cars either way but as I see it these bikers are far from "thugs". They are merely excercising their right to ride the road making other road users aware of certain other "road users". Where is the thuggery in that. Also, riding in front of or behind another vehicle, as long as it is legal, is not intimidation. The council and, possibly, the spy car operators (although we only have Andrew Lewis word for that), are just trying to make excuses for the effect of gaining public sympathy. It seems the problem that lies with spy cars is that they cannot judge each circumstance on it's merits. There are many instances where blue badge users, people with punctures, legal loading/unloading etc. have all been ticketed using spy cars because theirs is a "catch all", ask questions later, policy. Whereas, a traffic warden can, as per recommendations, use their discretion at the time of the incident. Nobody is denying that illegal parkers should be punished but should we not be using methods to target the genuinely illegal parkers. If you cast a big net with small holes you will catch far more of those who are innocent than you would if you specifically targeted those who are not.

There is an appeals procedure.

So thats guilty until proven innocent then?

If illegally parked, yes. Don't want a fine, then don't park illegally. I know you are a staunch advocate of such lawbreaking behaviour, but it isn't difficult to understand.

meldrew84 wrote:
My main question for the bikers would be.... at what point did your lives become so boring and pointless you all felt the need to waste your time doing this???

If you are so concerned with public safety and helping others why don't you find a REAL cause to dedicate your time to? Perhaps if you used your intimidating presence around gangs of youths and druggies you could be classed as helpful....

Or if you are determined to parade in the motoring world and keep your presence "legal", perhaps you could spend your time reporting every vehicle you see that is breaking the law and posing a danger to the public ie speeding, using mobile phones whilst driving etc.

I just get the feeling you are a bunch of little bully boys who have had to think up a new way to make your point regarding parking tickets, it's all too easy to intimidate one traffic warden on foot and drive off before you can be reprimanded, but how do you tackle a car that you can't threaten and argue with?? Then one of you "geniuses" thought up the hells angels reject society....

Well clap clap guys, aren't we clever little boys then XD

Royston@SS9 wrote:
I have read this thread with interest and whereas i dont necessarily condone vigilante action I neither accept that the Spy cars are a sensible method of increasing road safety in our area. I will share my recent experiences and would be interested in feedback, no matter which side of the fence you sit on.
At the south end of Flemming Ave nr A13 at West Leigh Schools there is a cobbled drive area long enough for three cars. Some parents at pick up time have been parking there (it is currently a fenced off building site so no access issues). The cars are completely off the road and not technically on the pavement. There is enough room for a pram to easily pass safely on the pavement side. A spy car has, on at least two occasions taken to parking ON DOUBLE YELLOW LINES opposite throughout school leaving period, near to the junction and hence forcing vehicles travelling toward London road to move into the opposite carriageway thus creating an obvious hazard along with blocking the sight line of those pedestrians trying to cross usually with primary school children in tow!! (I walk with my daughter so have no vested interest other than road safety, and have not parked there or ever been issued a ticket, before you ask!). I was somewhat disbelieving of what I saw and the anger of fellow pedestrians passing by prompted me to knock on the window of the Spy Car and ask "Why on earth are you parked on the double yellow lines, you are creating more of a hazard than the one you are trying to prevent?" The driver wound down the window no more than an inch, grinned and stated "Because I can". I took out my phone and photo'ed the car with reg no. from behind as proof (which i still have) and his only response was to part wind down the window again and sarcastically say "why don't you take one of the front as well while you're there?!" Somewhat antagonistic I thought at the time. I was at no time anything less than polite and completely non-aggressive. I walked off with the feeling that they were only there because a few drivers had probably, at worst, exploited a loop-hole, and they sniffed a chance of some revenue and to hell with everyone elses safety by their own inconsiderate and frankly stupid positioning. They were there at least 20 minutes..why could they not take a picture and leave promptly? Their anti-social actions have certainly not endeared their cause to the users of that area and if this is the way their 'above the law' attitude is conveyed elsewhere i can see why others are (rightly or wrongly) making a stand!!

Nigel Wise wrote:
Lefty These so called 'safety' cars were responsible for running down a child in Southend: http://www.echo-news .co.uk/news/9178252. Young_boy_hit_by_CCT V_car_on_Southend_se afront/ Therefore it is YOU that 'supports lawbreaking.' 'Lawbreaking' is something that these vehicles do on a regular basis : http://www.echo-news .co.uk/news/local_ne ws/southend/9659544. Southend_man_s_landm ark_spy_car_victory/ The issuing of tickets by the use of these vehicles in areas where CEO's can freely and easily patrol on foot is against the statutory guidance which Authorities must have regard to. Clearly in Southend there is no regard to this. In Richmond upon Thames it was decided that the use of these vehicles was not necessary. They were removed from our roads: http://cabnet.richmo nd.gov.uk/documents/ s29394/Item%2012%20- %20Fair%20Parking%20 Review.pdf We have had a 'Fair Parking' enforcement policy here since that time. There have been no reported incidents of any traffic problems or saftey events since this was done over a year ago. Businesses are now recovering. Lord True's policy of 'Fair Parking' and working with small businesses to encourage vibrant local shopping streets has now started to bear fruit. Prior to this the 'draconian enforcement' by these 'spy car' vehicles drove some shopkeepers and small business to the wall. Refer to this footage at post # 7 at 1:40 onwards: http://notomob.co.uk /discussions/index.p hp/topic,1281.msg107 18/topicseen.html#ms g10718 It will be necessary to copy and paste the above links into your browser.

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.

meldrew84 wrote:
My main question for the bikers would be.... at what point did your lives become so boring and pointless you all felt the need to waste your time doing this??? If you are so concerned with public safety and helping others why don't you find a REAL cause to dedicate your time to? Perhaps if you used your intimidating presence around gangs of youths and druggies you could be classed as helpful.... Or if you are determined to parade in the motoring world and keep your presence "legal", perhaps you could spend your time reporting every vehicle you see that is breaking the law and posing a danger to the public ie speeding, using mobile phones whilst driving etc. I just get the feeling you are a bunch of little bully boys who have had to think up a new way to make your point regarding parking tickets, it's all too easy to intimidate one traffic warden on foot and drive off before you can be reprimanded, but how do you tackle a car that you can't threaten and argue with?? Then one of you "geniuses" thought up the hells angels reject society.... Well clap clap guys, aren't we clever little boys then XD

bazaarhorse wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.

Do you post your comments to annoy people ? all your scores are negative, they always are. We know how anti car and pro bike you are, perhaps you could concentrate more on your cyclists, I see more law breakers on bikes every day than car drivers. This morning between Shoebury and Southend town center counted 14 cyclists, not one of them on the road but all on the footpaths ? and how about cyclists stopping traffic on pedestrian crossings so they can ride their bikes across ? I for one will not stop for people on bikes on cross walks, red or green.

Joe Hune wrote:
I would assume The Bald Eagle an KusariNinja are from the protest group as they seem to have the information on who is who in the organisation.

You are entitled to protest, you are correct in what you say that you are encouraging people to not park where they shouldn't which again I don't have an issue with, but what does concern me looking at the videos on youtube is you are sometimes videoing the employees of these companies that are just doing a job to pay their bills.

Your focus should be the local Council and the parking contractor, not the employees and that's where you will lose some support.

I agree with the spy cars in Southend, but I also understand that some don't which includes your group.

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

bazaarhorse wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.

Do you post your comments to annoy people ? all your scores are negative, they always are. We know how anti car and pro bike you are, perhaps you could concentrate more on your cyclists, I see more law breakers on bikes every day than car drivers. This morning between Shoebury and Southend town center counted 14 cyclists, not one of them on the road but all on the footpaths ? and how about cyclists stopping traffic on pedestrian crossings so they can ride their bikes across ? I for one will not stop for people on bikes on cross walks, red or green.

Are you on medication of some kind? There are no 'scores' on this website.

meldrew84 wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

bazaarhorse wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.

Do you post your comments to annoy people ? all your scores are negative, they always are. We know how anti car and pro bike you are, perhaps you could concentrate more on your cyclists, I see more law breakers on bikes every day than car drivers. This morning between Shoebury and Southend town center counted 14 cyclists, not one of them on the road but all on the footpaths ? and how about cyclists stopping traffic on pedestrian crossings so they can ride their bikes across ? I for one will not stop for people on bikes on cross walks, red or green.

Are you on medication of some kind? There are no 'scores' on this website.

I'll assume yours hasn't changed to the 'social networking' style layout then, people can now like and dislike comments... which appears to be leading to some childish popularity contest in which people are not making comments based on real opinion, but instead based on how many people they can get to like their comments.

I really wouldn't worry whether you have "negative" scores, the fact is you make YOUR opinion based on YOUR views, whether people agree with them or not.... It's not about popularity

emcee wrote:

Joe Hune wrote: I would assume The Bald Eagle an KusariNinja are from the protest group as they seem to have the information on who is who in the organisation. You are entitled to protest, you are correct in what you say that you are encouraging people to not park where they shouldn't which again I don't have an issue with, but what does concern me looking at the videos on youtube is you are sometimes videoing the employees of these companies that are just doing a job to pay their bills. Your focus should be the local Council and the parking contractor, not the employees and that's where you will lose some support. I agree with the spy cars in Southend, but I also understand that some don't which includes your group.

But it is often the employees who are the ones who do not follow the their employers or council guidleines or even the law and that is half the problem.

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

meldrew84 wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

bazaarhorse wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.

Do you post your comments to annoy people ? all your scores are negative, they always are. We know how anti car and pro bike you are, perhaps you could concentrate more on your cyclists, I see more law breakers on bikes every day than car drivers. This morning between Shoebury and Southend town center counted 14 cyclists, not one of them on the road but all on the footpaths ? and how about cyclists stopping traffic on pedestrian crossings so they can ride their bikes across ? I for one will not stop for people on bikes on cross walks, red or green.

Are you on medication of some kind? There are no 'scores' on this website.

I'll assume yours hasn't changed to the 'social networking' style layout then, people can now like and dislike comments... which appears to be leading to some childish popularity contest in which people are not making comments based on real opinion, but instead based on how many people they can get to like their comments.

I really wouldn't worry whether you have "negative" scores, the fact is you make YOUR opinion based on YOUR views, whether people agree with them or not.... It's not about popularity

Ah I've seen this on other websites. I've found that the posts that get the biggest negative reactions tend to be those that are true. People don't like the truth.

j-w wrote:
the scores seem to come and go, at home in the evening I have a different comment layout, all very weird!

meldrew84 wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

meldrew84 wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

bazaarhorse wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.

Do you post your comments to annoy people ? all your scores are negative, they always are. We know how anti car and pro bike you are, perhaps you could concentrate more on your cyclists, I see more law breakers on bikes every day than car drivers. This morning between Shoebury and Southend town center counted 14 cyclists, not one of them on the road but all on the footpaths ? and how about cyclists stopping traffic on pedestrian crossings so they can ride their bikes across ? I for one will not stop for people on bikes on cross walks, red or green.

Are you on medication of some kind? There are no 'scores' on this website.

I'll assume yours hasn't changed to the 'social networking' style layout then, people can now like and dislike comments... which appears to be leading to some childish popularity contest in which people are not making comments based on real opinion, but instead based on how many people they can get to like their comments.

I really wouldn't worry whether you have "negative" scores, the fact is you make YOUR opinion based on YOUR views, whether people agree with them or not.... It's not about popularity

Ah I've seen this on other websites. I've found that the posts that get the biggest negative reactions tend to be those that are true. People don't like the truth.

I'd imagine every person who has ever received a parking ticket is voting against you, so i guess you don't stand a chance! lol. Lucky the votes mean nothing really.

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

meldrew84 wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

meldrew84 wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

bazaarhorse wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Aiding and abetting traffic offences. If anyone is injured through this group's irresponsible behaviour then Mr Wells should be held 100% liable.

Do you post your comments to annoy people ? all your scores are negative, they always are. We know how anti car and pro bike you are, perhaps you could concentrate more on your cyclists, I see more law breakers on bikes every day than car drivers. This morning between Shoebury and Southend town center counted 14 cyclists, not one of them on the road but all on the footpaths ? and how about cyclists stopping traffic on pedestrian crossings so they can ride their bikes across ? I for one will not stop for people on bikes on cross walks, red or green.

Are you on medication of some kind? There are no 'scores' on this website.

I'll assume yours hasn't changed to the 'social networking' style layout then, people can now like and dislike comments... which appears to be leading to some childish popularity contest in which people are not making comments based on real opinion, but instead based on how many people they can get to like their comments.

I really wouldn't worry whether you have "negative" scores, the fact is you make YOUR opinion based on YOUR views, whether people agree with them or not.... It's not about popularity

Ah I've seen this on other websites. I've found that the posts that get the biggest negative reactions tend to be those that are true. People don't like the truth.

I'd imagine every person who has ever received a parking ticket is voting against you, so i guess you don't stand a chance! lol. Lucky the votes mean nothing really.

It's actually quite funny, all those disgruntled bad drivers who park illegally clicking their little mouse buttons to give me negative scores, and I can't even see the scores! Haha, that's priceless! :D

To be honest I couldn't give to hoots for scores, my opinions are mine, and no-one on this Earth has the ability to make me change them.

Joe Hune wrote:

emcee wrote:

Joe Hune wrote: I would assume The Bald Eagle an KusariNinja are from the protest group as they seem to have the information on who is who in the organisation. You are entitled to protest, you are correct in what you say that you are encouraging people to not park where they shouldn't which again I don't have an issue with, but what does concern me looking at the videos on youtube is you are sometimes videoing the employees of these companies that are just doing a job to pay their bills. Your focus should be the local Council and the parking contractor, not the employees and that's where you will lose some support. I agree with the spy cars in Southend, but I also understand that some don't which includes your group.

But it is often the employees who are the ones who do not follow the their employers or council guidleines or even the law and that is half the problem.

If it is the employees then it is up to APCOA or the Council to take action, not a bunch out of town motorbike riders!

People can't just take the law in to their own hands against the employee!

Let these bikers pressure the Council as APCOA only take instruction from them anyway, but the employees are just doing a job, why intimidate them?

dodgie1 wrote:
I think one has to assume that the driver/operators of these cars are not gifted with much in the way of brains and intelligence, otherwise they would be participating in a more demanding ocupation. For this reason, we are witnessing many innocent people being victimised by these awful machines. The lack of brains of the operators means they are unable to decipher whether they them selves are parking in a dangerous or inconsiderate fashion. Their lack of brains means that blue badge holders--genuine loading/unloading persons--and many other instances of reasons why a person is parking in a certain situation, are targetted. Coupled to this lack of intelligence is a certain arrogance which seems to give them a 'bully boy' mentallity. It is just as well they are not in the Police Force.

dodgie1 wrote:
I think one has to assume that the driver/operators of these cars are not gifted with much in the way of brains and intelligence, otherwise they would be participating in a more demanding ocupation. For this reason, we are witnessing many innocent people being victimised by these awful machines. The lack of brains of the operators means they are unable to decipher whether they them selves are parking in a dangerous or inconsiderate fashion. Their lack of brains means that blue badge holders--genuine loading/unloading persons--and many other instances of reasons why a person is parking in a certain situation, are targetted. Coupled to this lack of intelligence is a certain arrogance which seems to give them a 'bully boy' mentallity. It is just as well they are not in the Police Force.

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

dodgie1 wrote:
I think one has to assume that the driver/operators of these cars are not gifted with much in the way of brains and intelligence, otherwise they would be participating in a more demanding ocupation. For this reason, we are witnessing many innocent people being victimised by these awful machines. The lack of brains of the operators means they are unable to decipher whether they them selves are parking in a dangerous or inconsiderate fashion. Their lack of brains means that blue badge holders--genuine loading/unloading persons--and many other instances of reasons why a person is parking in a certain situation, are targetted. Coupled to this lack of intelligence is a certain arrogance which seems to give them a 'bully boy' mentallity. It is just as well they are not in the Police Force.

Or they are intelligent people who have downsized. I know a lot of extremely intelligent, very well qualified people who work as plumbers, joiners, drivers etc.

Don't judge a person by their occupation, you'll come unstuck a lot of the time.

dodgie1 wrote:
Well they certainly act as though they are devoid of any intelligence!

dodgie1 wrote:
You know these forums just go to show what a load of selfish and self interested ignorant people there are out there. Why don't most of you grow up and take a balanced view at the parking situations that can arise from just being a normal law abiding citizen. Like for instance a friend of mine that happens to live in a road with a bi monthly waiting restriction during the summer months. No problem with cars parked both sides but the council choose to operate this scheme. His daughter visits him to drop her young baby off and because the parking on the other side of the road is full, she parks on the no waiting side for just a couple of minutes . She causes no problem to any one, is not parking dangerously and not causing an obstruction in any way. Yes the spy car gets her. She is given no chance to explain or move the car, she is done. Another one of the 50 odd bookings for that car on that day! Now you wise no alls out there tell me that she has done wrong. Any that say yes she has well I would like to see what you would say if that had happened to you or your daughter. Had a warden on foot seen the situation, he would have most probably had a conversation and gone on his way. The complete disadvantage with the spy cars is the indiscriminate way they operate. You wise no alls out there just wait until you are picked on by these cars for a minor indiscretion. Just wait until you experience the rude and arrogant attitude of the operators. Just wait until you experience the periscope homed in on you for doing nothing. Just wait until you experience the two operators sitting in their little ivory tower smirking at you. I believe you are unable to enter any argument until you know all the facts on both sides. There are far too many people these days that form a bigoted opinion borne of ignorance.

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
"His daughter visits him to drop her young baby off and because the parking on the other side of the road is full, she parks on the no waiting side for just a couple of minutes ."

She could have found somewhere further away to park and walked to the house. She was lazy, she got a ticket. Tough.

dodgie1 wrote:
Well I suppose most of you are for the Google 'Spy in the Sky'? Mind you if you sun bathe nude in your gardens you have nothing to fear. It can't spot objects under 4 inches.

dodgie1 wrote:
'Leftie cyclist' shows what you know about being a parent then! Not only did she have the baby to drop off but all the other required bits that go with a baby. In fact she is entitled to say she was unloading and that will be her appeal.

dodgie1 wrote:
'Leftie cyclist' shows what you know about being a parent then! Not only did she have the baby to drop off but all the other required bits that go with a baby. In fact she is entitled to say she was unloading and that will be her appeal.

Royston@SS9 wrote:
I have read this thread with interest and whereas i dont necessarily condone vigilante action I neither accept that the Spy cars are a sensible method of increasing road safety in our area. I will share my recent experiences and would be interested in feedback, no matter which side of the fence you sit on.
At the south end of Flemming Ave nr A13 at West Leigh Schools there is a cobbled drive area long enough for three cars. Some parents at pick up time have been parking there (it is currently a fenced off building site so no access issues). The cars are completely off the road and not technically on the pavement. There is enough room for a pram to easily pass safely on the pavement side. A spy car has, on at least two occasions taken to parking ON DOUBLE YELLOW LINES opposite throughout school leaving period, near to the junction and hence forcing vehicles travelling toward London road to move into the opposite carriageway thus creating an obvious hazard along with blocking the sight line of those pedestrians trying to cross usually with primary school children in tow!! (I walk with my daughter so have no vested interest other than road safety, and have not parked there or ever been issued a ticket, before you ask!). I was somewhat disbelieving of what I saw and the anger of fellow pedestrians passing by prompted me to knock on the window of the Spy Car and ask "Why on earth are you parked on the double yellow lines, you are creating more of a hazard than the one you are trying to prevent?" The driver wound down the window no more than an inch, grinned and stated "Because I can". I took out my phone and photo'ed the car with reg no. from behind as proof (which i still have) and his only response was to part wind down the window again and sarcastically say "why don't you take one of the front as well while you're there?!" Somewhat antagonistic I thought at the time. I was at no time anything less than polite and completely non-aggressive. I walked off with the feeling that they were only there because a few drivers had probably, at worst, exploited a loop-hole, and they sniffed a chance of some revenue and to hell with everyone elses safety by their own inconsiderate and frankly stupid positioning. They were there at least 20 minutes..why could they not take a picture and leave promptly? Their anti-social actions have certainly not endeared their cause to the users of that area and if this is the way their 'above the law' attitude is conveyed elsewhere i can see why others are (rightly or wrongly) making a stand!!

dodgie1 wrote:
Mildrew 84 You just go to prove what I have said about knowing the facts. 'So why didn't you go to help her' you said , trying to make me out as an unhelpful person. Well the reason is I wasn't there at the time. Some of you seem to accept that every ticket issued is a rightful one with no fault on the side of the car operators. Why don't you join the real world where you will witness many wrongful things carried out by our Government and Councils. Many tickets issued by the cars are WRONG. That is why the appeal numbers in towns where they use these cars, have shot up. THEY ARE INDISCRIMINATE IN THEIR USE!! They were introduced to sort out dangerous parking and most people would not have a problem with that. The majority of tickets however, are not for dangerous parking. There is something else I would like to bring in to this forum. On the pcn, there is the indication that the lower amount to pay by a certain time before it doubles, is not allowed should the recipient appeal. This is totally misleading and not true. You are still allowed to pay the lower amount if you appeal and lose, provided the lower amount is paid within the designated time after the result of the appeal. The pcn fails to inform of this fact resulting in many people not appealing because of fear of losing the lower price.

dodgie1 wrote:
You know these forums just go to show what a load of selfish and self interested ignorant people there are out there. Why don't most of you grow up and take a balanced view at the parking situations that can arise from just being a normal law abiding citizen. Like for instance a friend of mine that happens to live in a road with a bi monthly waiting restriction during the summer months. No problem with cars parked both sides but the council choose to operate this scheme. His daughter visits him to drop her young baby off and because the parking on the other side of the road is full, she parks on the no waiting side for just a couple of minutes . She causes no problem to any one, is not parking dangerously and not causing an obstruction in any way. Yes the spy car gets her. She is given no chance to explain or move the car, she is done. Another one of the 50 odd bookings for that car on that day! Now you wise no alls out there tell me that she has done wrong. Any that say yes she has well I would like to see what you would say if that had happened to you or your daughter. Had a warden on foot seen the situation, he would have most probably had a conversation and gone on his way. The complete disadvantage with the spy cars is the indiscriminate way they operate. You wise no alls out there just wait until you are picked on by these cars for a minor indiscretion. Just wait until you experience the rude and arrogant attitude of the operators. Just wait until you experience the periscope homed in on you for doing nothing. Just wait until you experience the two operators sitting in their little ivory tower smirking at you. I believe you are unable to enter any argument until you know all the facts on both sides. There are far too many people these days that form a bigoted opinion borne of ignorance.

heartbeat wrote:

Royston@SS9 wrote: I have read this thread with interest and whereas i dont necessarily condone vigilante action I neither accept that the Spy cars are a sensible method of increasing road safety in our area. I will share my recent experiences and would be interested in feedback, no matter which side of the fence you sit on. At the south end of Flemming Ave nr A13 at West Leigh Schools there is a cobbled drive area long enough for three cars. Some parents at pick up time have been parking there (it is currently a fenced off building site so no access issues). The cars are completely off the road and not technically on the pavement. There is enough room for a pram to easily pass safely on the pavement side. A spy car has, on at least two occasions taken to parking ON DOUBLE YELLOW LINES opposite throughout school leaving period, near to the junction and hence forcing vehicles travelling toward London road to move into the opposite carriageway thus creating an obvious hazard along with blocking the sight line of those pedestrians trying to cross usually with primary school children in tow!! (I walk with my daughter so have no vested interest other than road safety, and have not parked there or ever been issued a ticket, before you ask!). I was somewhat disbelieving of what I saw and the anger of fellow pedestrians passing by prompted me to knock on the window of the Spy Car and ask "Why on earth are you parked on the double yellow lines, you are creating more of a hazard than the one you are trying to prevent?" The driver wound down the window no more than an inch, grinned and stated "Because I can". I took out my phone and photo'ed the car with reg no. from behind as proof (which i still have) and his only response was to part wind down the window again and sarcastically say "why don't you take one of the front as well while you're there?!" Somewhat antagonistic I thought at the time. I was at no time anything less than polite and completely non-aggressive. I walked off with the feeling that they were only there because a few drivers had probably, at worst, exploited a loop-hole, and they sniffed a chance of some revenue and to hell with everyone elses safety by their own inconsiderate and frankly stupid positioning. They were there at least 20 minutes..why could they not take a picture and leave promptly? Their anti-social actions have certainly not endeared their cause to the users of that area and if this is the way their 'above the law' attitude is conveyed elsewhere i can see why others are (rightly or wrongly) making a stand!!

You've hit the nail on the head. It's all about revenue far more than it is about hazardous parking. I know that from roads near me - one hour restricted parking a day (obviously considered safe to park for the other 23 hours a day, so how on earth can safety be the issue?!) - at the appointed hour the vulture cars frequently appear to catch their unfortunate prey. I've never had a ticket so have no personal axe to grind. I wouldnt even care so much if the Council admitted it was all about raising revenue because they are skint - it's the deceit and pretence that it's all about safety and zig-zag lines outside schools that really annoys me. Just how dumb do they think we all are?? Oh yes I suppose they might read Echo forums.

The Bald Eagle wrote:
119 posts and the keyboard warriors on here are still at it. Did we touch a nerve? Certain correspondents have made it entirely clear that they do not want the No To Mob to assist with safety and traffic flow in their town. That is their opinion and they are perfectly entitled to it. The members of the NTM are equally entitled to ignore their opinion (and believe me we will) and go about our lawful business of holding public servants and their employees/contractor s to account to us (the public they purport to serve) for their actions. I await the inevitable tirade of uninformed, illogical abuse that will undoubtedly follow, but to quote Lefty Cyclist from one of his posts above, if you don't like it, "Tough".

Joe Hune wrote:

The Bald Eagle wrote:
119 posts and the keyboard warriors on here are still at it. Did we touch a nerve? Certain correspondents have made it entirely clear that they do not want the No To Mob to assist with safety and traffic flow in their town. That is their opinion and they are perfectly entitled to it. The members of the NTM are equally entitled to ignore their opinion (and believe me we will) and go about our lawful business of holding public servants and their employees/contractor s to account to us (the public they purport to serve) for their actions. I await the inevitable tirade of uninformed, illogical abuse that will undoubtedly follow, but to quote Lefty Cyclist from one of his posts above, if you don't like it, "Tough".

Yeah you got the hint that your not wanted in Southend, but if anybody expected you to take any notice of that, they were very much mistaken.

Come to Southend, if it keeps your sad little lives happy to ride around our roads everyday then do so.

But if you think the Southend Council will buckle to this type of protest, then wake up and smell the coffee as it is never going to happen!

Can you imagine if they buckle to a few boys on their bikes, they would be U-Turning on everything! The CCTV cars are here to stay and if there was ever a chance to get rid of them, you lot coming here has put a stop to that!!

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

Joe Hune wrote:

The Bald Eagle wrote: 119 posts and the keyboard warriors on here are still at it. Did we touch a nerve? Certain correspondents have made it entirely clear that they do not want the No To Mob to assist with safety and traffic flow in their town. That is their opinion and they are perfectly entitled to it. The members of the NTM are equally entitled to ignore their opinion (and believe me we will) and go about our lawful business of holding public servants and their employees/contractor s to account to us (the public they purport to serve) for their actions. I await the inevitable tirade of uninformed, illogical abuse that will undoubtedly follow, but to quote Lefty Cyclist from one of his posts above, if you don't like it, "Tough".

Yeah you got the hint that your not wanted in Southend, but if anybody expected you to take any notice of that, they were very much mistaken. Come to Southend, if it keeps your sad little lives happy to ride around our roads everyday then do so. But if you think the Southend Council will buckle to this type of protest, then wake up and smell the coffee as it is never going to happen! Can you imagine if they buckle to a few boys on their bikes, they would be U-Turning on everything! The CCTV cars are here to stay and if there was ever a chance to get rid of them, you lot coming here has put a stop to that!!

The only reason they're protesting is because Westminster council brought in parking charges for motorcycles. Until then they'd been able to park free. They're just children throwing their toys out of the pram because now they have to contribute just like every other driver.

Joe Hune wrote:

dodgie1 wrote:
You know these forums just go to show what a load of selfish and self interested ignorant people there are out there. Why don't most of you grow up and take a balanced view at the parking situations that can arise from just being a normal law abiding citizen. Like for instance a friend of mine that happens to live in a road with a bi monthly waiting restriction during the summer months. No problem with cars parked both sides but the council choose to operate this scheme. His daughter visits him to drop her young baby off and because the parking on the other side of the road is full, she parks on the no waiting side for just a couple of minutes . She causes no problem to any one, is not parking dangerously and not causing an obstruction in any way. Yes the spy car gets her. She is given no chance to explain or move the car, she is done. Another one of the 50 odd bookings for that car on that day! Now you wise no alls out there tell me that she has done wrong. Any that say yes she has well I would like to see what you would say if that had happened to you or your daughter. Had a warden on foot seen the situation, he would have most probably had a conversation and gone on his way. The complete disadvantage with the spy cars is the indiscriminate way they operate. You wise no alls out there just wait until you are picked on by these cars for a minor indiscretion. Just wait until you experience the rude and arrogant attitude of the operators. Just wait until you experience the periscope homed in on you for doing nothing. Just wait until you experience the two operators sitting in their little ivory tower smirking at you. I believe you are unable to enter any argument until you know all the facts on both sides. There are far too many people these days that form a bigoted opinion borne of ignorance.

One minute you are giving it large about these people who drive the cars not having any brains and the next minute you are going on about 'bigoted opinion borne of ignorance'!!

WHAT A MUPPET YOU REALLY ARE!!

You don't know these people, you don't know if they are qualified or not, in fact you actually do not know anything about them apart from the job that they do!!

How does the driver of the car know this women hasn't been there all day??

How does he know she has a baby??

How does he know she is visiting?

He will see a vehicle parking illigally and film it for 3 minutes as quoted by some Council official in a previous article. If he doesn't see any movement for 3 minutes yes he has every right to issue the person with a ticket!

Why don't they get out of their cars? Would you if you had to put up with some of the bad mouthed bigoted, ignorant people who live in Southend or comment on this site, because I wouldn't!!

Why do people want foot Wardens? Because they can be intimidated or thretened.

Pathetic people like you who in one comment go on about the drivers not being that gifted and then later on go on about a balanced views.

I see these Wardens walking outside my shop every day and they get crap and abuse all the time. I'm glad they have these cars and don't get out to talk to idiots like you and I just hope that the CCTV car gets you or yours one day as I can't think of anybody else who would deserve it more!

Joe Hune wrote:

The Bald Eagle wrote:
119 posts and the keyboard warriors on here are still at it. Did we touch a nerve? Certain correspondents have made it entirely clear that they do not want the No To Mob to assist with safety and traffic flow in their town. That is their opinion and they are perfectly entitled to it. The members of the NTM are equally entitled to ignore their opinion (and believe me we will) and go about our lawful business of holding public servants and their employees/contractor s to account to us (the public they purport to serve) for their actions. I await the inevitable tirade of uninformed, illogical abuse that will undoubtedly follow, but to quote Lefty Cyclist from one of his posts above, if you don't like it, "Tough".

Yeah you got the hint that your not wanted in Southend, but if anybody expected you to take any notice of that, they were very much mistaken.

Come to Southend, if it keeps your sad little lives happy to ride around our roads everyday then do so.

But if you think the Southend Council will buckle to this type of protest, then wake up and smell the coffee as it is never going to happen!

Can you imagine if they buckle to a few boys on their bikes, they would be U-Turning on everything! The CCTV cars are here to stay and if there was ever a chance to get rid of them, you lot coming here has put a stop to that!!

Joe Hune wrote:

dodgie1 wrote:
You know these forums just go to show what a load of selfish and self interested ignorant people there are out there. Why don't most of you grow up and take a balanced view at the parking situations that can arise from just being a normal law abiding citizen. Like for instance a friend of mine that happens to live in a road with a bi monthly waiting restriction during the summer months. No problem with cars parked both sides but the council choose to operate this scheme. His daughter visits him to drop her young baby off and because the parking on the other side of the road is full, she parks on the no waiting side for just a couple of minutes . She causes no problem to any one, is not parking dangerously and not causing an obstruction in any way. Yes the spy car gets her. She is given no chance to explain or move the car, she is done. Another one of the 50 odd bookings for that car on that day! Now you wise no alls out there tell me that she has done wrong. Any that say yes she has well I would like to see what you would say if that had happened to you or your daughter. Had a warden on foot seen the situation, he would have most probably had a conversation and gone on his way. The complete disadvantage with the spy cars is the indiscriminate way they operate. You wise no alls out there just wait until you are picked on by these cars for a minor indiscretion. Just wait until you experience the rude and arrogant attitude of the operators. Just wait until you experience the periscope homed in on you for doing nothing. Just wait until you experience the two operators sitting in their little ivory tower smirking at you. I believe you are unable to enter any argument until you know all the facts on both sides. There are far too many people these days that form a bigoted opinion borne of ignorance.

One minute you are giving it large about these people who drive the cars not having any brains and the next minute you are going on about 'bigoted opinion borne of ignorance'!!

WHAT A MUPPET YOU REALLY ARE!!

You don't know these people, you don't know if they are qualified or not, in fact you actually do not know anything about them apart from the job that they do!!

How does the driver of the car know this women hasn't been there all day??

How does he know she has a baby??

How does he know she is visiting?

He will see a vehicle parking illigally and film it for 3 minutes as quoted by some Council official in a previous article. If he doesn't see any movement for 3 minutes yes he has every right to issue the person with a ticket!

Why don't they get out of their cars? Would you if you had to put up with some of the bad mouthed bigoted, ignorant people who live in Southend or comment on this site, because I wouldn't!!

Why do people want foot Wardens? Because they can be intimidated or thretened.

Pathetic people like you who in one comment go on about the drivers not being that gifted and then later on go on about a balanced views.

I see these Wardens walking outside my shop every day and they get crap and abuse all the time. I'm glad they have these cars and don't get out to talk to idiots like you and I just hope that the CCTV car gets you or yours one day as I can't think of anybody else who would deserve it more!

emcee wrote:

Joe Hune wrote:

The Bald Eagle wrote:
119 posts and the keyboard warriors on here are still at it. Did we touch a nerve? Certain correspondents have made it entirely clear that they do not want the No To Mob to assist with safety and traffic flow in their town. That is their opinion and they are perfectly entitled to it. The members of the NTM are equally entitled to ignore their opinion (and believe me we will) and go about our lawful business of holding public servants and their employees/contractor s to account to us (the public they purport to serve) for their actions. I await the inevitable tirade of uninformed, illogical abuse that will undoubtedly follow, but to quote Lefty Cyclist from one of his posts above, if you don't like it, "Tough".

Yeah you got the hint that your not wanted in Southend, but if anybody expected you to take any notice of that, they were very much mistaken.

Come to Southend, if it keeps your sad little lives happy to ride around our roads everyday then do so.

But if you think the Southend Council will buckle to this type of protest, then wake up and smell the coffee as it is never going to happen!

Can you imagine if they buckle to a few boys on their bikes, they would be U-Turning on everything! The CCTV cars are here to stay and if there was ever a chance to get rid of them, you lot coming here has put a stop to that!!

I don't think the council will buckle (although, you never know). However, all these bikers are doing is assisting the CCTV car by warning drivers not to park where they shouldn't. As that is supposed to be the whole purpose of these CCTV cars (council spin) then what is problem? The real reason the council and APCOA do not like it, and lets be really honest here, is because these bikers are slowing down the revenue flow that these CCTV cars create. Pure and simple.

meldrew84 wrote:

emcee wrote:

Joe Hune wrote:

The Bald Eagle wrote:
119 posts and the keyboard warriors on here are still at it. Did we touch a nerve? Certain correspondents have made it entirely clear that they do not want the No To Mob to assist with safety and traffic flow in their town. That is their opinion and they are perfectly entitled to it. The members of the NTM are equally entitled to ignore their opinion (and believe me we will) and go about our lawful business of holding public servants and their employees/contractor s to account to us (the public they purport to serve) for their actions. I await the inevitable tirade of uninformed, illogical abuse that will undoubtedly follow, but to quote Lefty Cyclist from one of his posts above, if you don't like it, "Tough".

Yeah you got the hint that your not wanted in Southend, but if anybody expected you to take any notice of that, they were very much mistaken.

Come to Southend, if it keeps your sad little lives happy to ride around our roads everyday then do so.

But if you think the Southend Council will buckle to this type of protest, then wake up and smell the coffee as it is never going to happen!

Can you imagine if they buckle to a few boys on their bikes, they would be U-Turning on everything! The CCTV cars are here to stay and if there was ever a chance to get rid of them, you lot coming here has put a stop to that!!

I don't think the council will buckle (although, you never know). However, all these bikers are doing is assisting the CCTV car by warning drivers not to park where they shouldn't. As that is supposed to be the whole purpose of these CCTV cars (council spin) then what is problem? The real reason the council and APCOA do not like it, and lets be really honest here, is because these bikers are slowing down the revenue flow that these CCTV cars create. Pure and simple.

Do you REALLY believe that's the intentions of the bikers??? I sincerely doubt it. They couldn't possibly come on here and admit they are just being childish little bullies, they have to keep it marginally legal. Although it appears as though morals have flown far beyond them......

emcee wrote:

meldrew84 wrote:

emcee wrote:

Joe Hune wrote:

The Bald Eagle wrote:
119 posts and the keyboard warriors on here are still at it. Did we touch a nerve? Certain correspondents have made it entirely clear that they do not want the No To Mob to assist with safety and traffic flow in their town. That is their opinion and they are perfectly entitled to it. The members of the NTM are equally entitled to ignore their opinion (and believe me we will) and go about our lawful business of holding public servants and their employees/contractor s to account to us (the public they purport to serve) for their actions. I await the inevitable tirade of uninformed, illogical abuse that will undoubtedly follow, but to quote Lefty Cyclist from one of his posts above, if you don't like it, "Tough".

Yeah you got the hint that your not wanted in Southend, but if anybody expected you to take any notice of that, they were very much mistaken.

Come to Southend, if it keeps your sad little lives happy to ride around our roads everyday then do so.

But if you think the Southend Council will buckle to this type of protest, then wake up and smell the coffee as it is never going to happen!

Can you imagine if they buckle to a few boys on their bikes, they would be U-Turning on everything! The CCTV cars are here to stay and if there was ever a chance to get rid of them, you lot coming here has put a stop to that!!

I don't think the council will buckle (although, you never know). However, all these bikers are doing is assisting the CCTV car by warning drivers not to park where they shouldn't. As that is supposed to be the whole purpose of these CCTV cars (council spin) then what is problem? The real reason the council and APCOA do not like it, and lets be really honest here, is because these bikers are slowing down the revenue flow that these CCTV cars create. Pure and simple.

Do you REALLY believe that's the intentions of the bikers??? I sincerely doubt it. They couldn't possibly come on here and admit they are just being childish little bullies, they have to keep it marginally legal. Although it appears as though morals have flown far beyond them......

Actually, yes I do. They have constantly said that they have no qualms with the council dealing with illegal parkers. However, they do have an issue with how CCTV cars deal with illegal parkers and their "catch all" (guilty before being proved innocent) methods, regardless of victims circumstances or right to park there.
The council would have us all believe that whole point of these CCTV cars is prevention. Sometimes these cars use stealth to obtain a fine when they are supposed to be highly visible so, by drawing attention to car drivers that the CCTV car is about, surely these bikers are helping the CCTV car fulfil it's advertised role.
However, we all know the CCTV cars are a cash cow and the council and parties concerned are just annoyed that these bikers are ruining business.
Also, if the CCTV car operators feel intimaidated or "bullied" (how you justify this term is beyond me) by a biker riding in front of and/or behind them, in a safe and legal manner, then they are certainly not fit to carry out their operators role or drive the CCTV car in the first place.