Southend Airport parking firm "misleads" customers

Echo: The Southend Airport Car Park team The Southend Airport Car Park team

A VALET parking firm has been using free spaces at Southend Airport to park customers’ cars...but still charged them the full price.

An Echo investigation has revealed Southend Airport Car Park (SACP) has been taking advantage of the airport’s offer of free long-stay parking, which ends this month, by block-booking spaces.

Despite their cars being parked for free, just a stone’s throw away from the terminal, customers were not told about the move - and charged up to £20 a day.

Our reporters also discovered evidence of SACP tailgating customers’ vehicles bumper to bumper to sneak them through the airport’s car park barriers without paying.

Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said he was shocked by our discoveries.

He said: “Whilst we are aware of some unauthorised organisations misleading people into thinking they offer airport car parking, the behaviour we have seen recently has been shocking.

"Our priority is always for our customers and they should never be misled as they appear to have been by others here."

Airport bosses announced in January they would offer free parking to passengers for the first two months of 2013 to mark the first anniversary of the new £10million terminal.

The deal, which includes a £1 booking fee, applied to the 500-space Long-Stay Car Park 2 for customers booking through the website, southendairport.com.

SACP is one of the airport’s major rivals for passengers’ parking, offering drop-off and pick-up services at the terminal for £40 a week.

The Echo’s investigation revealed that, within days of the airport’s free parking offer being announced, dozens of bookings had been made by SACP.

However, when an undercover reporter rang to book its services, no discounts or references to the airport’s deal were offered.

SACP drivers have been observed arriving en masse to park customers’ cars in the car park and retrieve them again late at night.

When airport staff realised what was happening, they logged the cars’ registration plates on the car park entry-and-exit system, forcing the firm to pay the full price when they attempted to leave.

However, rather than doing so, SACP employees paid for one customer’s car and then tailgated others behind it to dodge the closing barrier without paying.

Various examples of the scam were also caught on film by the airport’s own CCTV cameras.

 

REGRETFUL bosses have held their hands up and apologised for their treatment of customers’ cars.

Lorraine Larman, financial director of Southend Airport Car Park (SACP), said she was deeply sorry if her staff members’ action had upset anybody.

However, she insisted that, until recently, she had been completely that customers’ cars had been parked in the airport’s long-stay car park.

Placing the blame on one of the firm’s managers, Ms Larman said that employee had now been sacked and she was prepared to go to any lengths to save her company’s reputation.

She said: “We have built our company on the basis of offering great service to our customers and being a family-run business.

“I was not aware that any of this was going on and, if I had been, I would have stopped it straight away.

“It was the actions of one member of staff who has now been dismissed.”

Ms Larman and her son, Louis Larman, set up SACP last year to take advantage of the rejuvenated airport’s growing number of passenger flights.

However, she said both of them had been forced away from the business in recent weeks after Mr Larman’s young son was diagnosed with cancer.

In their absence, Ms Larman claimed the staff member left in charge of the firm decided to exploit the airport’s free parking offer without her or Mr Larman’s consent.

That employee was sacked on Friday, she said.

The firm still uses its base on the Temple Farm industrial estate to park customers’ cars.

Ms Larman said the decision to use the airport’s own car park was not triggered by a lack of space at their own site.

She said: “I don’t think that was the case at all.

“I think the member of staff thought the airport was being cheeky by taking away the free drop-off lay-by, so they would do this in return.

“Of course we would not have wanted this to happen or for our customers’ cars to be treated in this way.

“If the airport would like us to pay for the spaces or do anything else to put this right, I will gladly do that.

“Our company means everything to us.”

Comments (56)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:18am Wed 27 Feb 13

jayman says...

well, the company has now declared that it is not doing this again and has sacked the member of staff responsible.
well, the company has now declared that it is not doing this again and has sacked the member of staff responsible. jayman

8:19am Wed 27 Feb 13

hothead says...

Why all the attacks on this great service?

Amazing that the Echo got to see what bookings were made for the free airport spaces, I would have thought this was private information held by the carpark operators, who obviously musty have been in on the investigation.
Why all the attacks on this great service? Amazing that the Echo got to see what bookings were made for the free airport spaces, I would have thought this was private information held by the carpark operators, who obviously musty have been in on the investigation. hothead

8:43am Wed 27 Feb 13

A Pedant says...

well, the company has now declared that it is not doing this again and has sacked the member of staff responsible.

So that makes it alright then?


Why all the attacks on this great service?

...er because they lied to customers and charged them up to £20 a day for supposedly providing a secure parking service on their own site, while parking cars for free in the Airport without the vehicle owners' consent?

Also how about the possible defrauding of the airport by tailgating cars out the car park without paying a fee?
well, the company has now declared that it is not doing this again and has sacked the member of staff responsible. So that makes it alright then? Why all the attacks on this great service? ...er because they lied to customers and charged them up to £20 a day for supposedly providing a secure parking service on their own site, while parking cars for free in the Airport without the vehicle owners' consent? Also how about the possible defrauding of the airport by tailgating cars out the car park without paying a fee? A Pedant

8:47am Wed 27 Feb 13

Joe Wildman-Clark says...

A few questions:

Have the customers effected had the money paid back?

Who paid the £1 booking fee as there could possibly be a case of fraud if a company credit card was used without permission?

Would the cars registration number have had to be used to pre-bok, if so could this amount to a breach of the data protecton act?

Prehaps the airport could look at obtaining a court injunction to ban them from operating anywhere on the airport grounds.

Thoughts please as I head to another mundane day chained to a desk in a non descript office in central London on a grey damp chilly day...
A few questions: Have the customers effected had the money paid back? Who paid the £1 booking fee as there could possibly be a case of fraud if a company credit card was used without permission? Would the cars registration number have had to be used to pre-bok, if so could this amount to a breach of the data protecton act? Prehaps the airport could look at obtaining a court injunction to ban them from operating anywhere on the airport grounds. Thoughts please as I head to another mundane day chained to a desk in a non descript office in central London on a grey damp chilly day... Joe Wildman-Clark

8:56am Wed 27 Feb 13

macho man says...

The airport is trying to break its local car parking competitors by offering a two month free parking period.

When thery have finally broken these other firms, you just watch the prices rise for on airport car parking.

And SACP are the bad guys - think again.

I have read the full article, and it is very clear that this is no big undercover reporting - simply a tip off to the Echo by the airport.
The airport is trying to break its local car parking competitors by offering a two month free parking period. When thery have finally broken these other firms, you just watch the prices rise for on airport car parking. And SACP are the bad guys - think again. I have read the full article, and it is very clear that this is no big undercover reporting - simply a tip off to the Echo by the airport. macho man

9:02am Wed 27 Feb 13

DogsMessInLeigh says...

which one in the company photo has been sacked..?

This is the sort of thing that you would see on rouge traders.
It ruined their image somewhat, i reckon the Airport are loving it.
which one in the company photo has been sacked..? This is the sort of thing that you would see on rouge traders. It ruined their image somewhat, i reckon the Airport are loving it. DogsMessInLeigh

9:07am Wed 27 Feb 13

j-w says...

I felt sorry for the victimization of this company at first and thought the airport was being a bit unfair, but so far we have had people on here say they have parking customers cars on progress road instead of secure when they were based on that site, then they moved and operated without planning permission (and still do) and now they are sneaking cars into the airports free parking deal.
People worrying about the airport charging too much for parking shouldn't worry, use a site like parkatmyhouse.co.uk to find cheap residential parking nearby!
I felt sorry for the victimization of this company at first and thought the airport was being a bit unfair, but so far we have had people on here say they have parking customers cars on progress road instead of secure when they were based on that site, then they moved and operated without planning permission (and still do) and now they are sneaking cars into the airports free parking deal. People worrying about the airport charging too much for parking shouldn't worry, use a site like parkatmyhouse.co.uk to find cheap residential parking nearby! j-w

9:24am Wed 27 Feb 13

Dinosaur_Jr says...

jayman wrote:
well, the company has now declared that it is not doing this again and has sacked the member of staff responsible.
Wow, just wow.

The airport just as much as blinks at the wrong time and you are on this site like a shot making outrageous, unsubstantiated often bordering on libelous comments about the airport, their owners and the council.

A company is found to be defrauding it's customers by using a service offered by the airport and you just brush it aside.

Do you think that this company would have located it's morals and declared that this practice had ceased, if they hadn't been exposed?
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well, the company has now declared that it is not doing this again and has sacked the member of staff responsible.[/p][/quote]Wow, just wow. The airport just as much as blinks at the wrong time and you are on this site like a shot making outrageous, unsubstantiated often bordering on libelous comments about the airport, their owners and the council. A company is found to be defrauding it's customers by using a service offered by the airport and you just brush it aside. Do you think that this company would have located it's morals and declared that this practice had ceased, if they hadn't been exposed? Dinosaur_Jr

9:26am Wed 27 Feb 13

Rayleigh Reader says...

At there old site in Progress Road, once the car park was full customers had the security and pleasure of their cars actually being parked up and down progress road FACT!!!! Hardly a great company at all!
At there old site in Progress Road, once the car park was full customers had the security and pleasure of their cars actually being parked up and down progress road FACT!!!! Hardly a great company at all! Rayleigh Reader

9:33am Wed 27 Feb 13

saddo99 says...

Not very nice but at least they didn't use the cars for a week like some parking firms! And Dogmess..rouge traders? Well, better red than dead!
Not very nice but at least they didn't use the cars for a week like some parking firms! And Dogmess..rouge traders? Well, better red than dead! saddo99

9:38am Wed 27 Feb 13

DogsMessInLeigh says...

Its the French edition.
Its the French edition. DogsMessInLeigh

9:41am Wed 27 Feb 13

jayman says...

A Pedant wrote:
well, the company has now declared that it is not doing this again and has sacked the member of staff responsible.

So that makes it alright then?


Why all the attacks on this great service?

...er because they lied to customers and charged them up to £20 a day for supposedly providing a secure parking service on their own site, while parking cars for free in the Airport without the vehicle owners' consent?

Also how about the possible defrauding of the airport by tailgating cars out the car park without paying a fee?
it depends on whether or not the 'terms and conditions' of the airports car park where preventing this.. the report says that the car park spaces where pre-booked by the company concerned.. if the company used false information to book the spaces then a illegal act has taken place.

However, what seems to have happened is that a company has used a secondary site to park vehicles. 'perfectly legal and proper' did the company specifically state that all cars are stored on a specific site?

It may well be the case that the airport knew full well what was going on and sprung a news story out of it. it also may well be the case that all the vehicles where parked in a secondary secure location and that no damage has been caused as a result..
[quote][p][bold]A Pedant[/bold] wrote: well, the company has now declared that it is not doing this again and has sacked the member of staff responsible. So that makes it alright then? Why all the attacks on this great service? ...er because they lied to customers and charged them up to £20 a day for supposedly providing a secure parking service on their own site, while parking cars for free in the Airport without the vehicle owners' consent? Also how about the possible defrauding of the airport by tailgating cars out the car park without paying a fee?[/p][/quote]it depends on whether or not the 'terms and conditions' of the airports car park where preventing this.. the report says that the car park spaces where pre-booked by the company concerned.. if the company used false information to book the spaces then a illegal act has taken place. However, what seems to have happened is that a company has used a secondary site to park vehicles. 'perfectly legal and proper' did the company specifically state that all cars are stored on a specific site? It may well be the case that the airport knew full well what was going on and sprung a news story out of it. it also may well be the case that all the vehicles where parked in a secondary secure location and that no damage has been caused as a result.. jayman

9:44am Wed 27 Feb 13

jayman says...

Dinosaur_Jr wrote:
jayman wrote:
well, the company has now declared that it is not doing this again and has sacked the member of staff responsible.
Wow, just wow.

The airport just as much as blinks at the wrong time and you are on this site like a shot making outrageous, unsubstantiated often bordering on libelous comments about the airport, their owners and the council.

A company is found to be defrauding it's customers by using a service offered by the airport and you just brush it aside.

Do you think that this company would have located it's morals and declared that this practice had ceased, if they hadn't been exposed?
how is anything in what I have wrote wrong or untrue.. its in the article above...??
[quote][p][bold]Dinosaur_Jr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well, the company has now declared that it is not doing this again and has sacked the member of staff responsible.[/p][/quote]Wow, just wow. The airport just as much as blinks at the wrong time and you are on this site like a shot making outrageous, unsubstantiated often bordering on libelous comments about the airport, their owners and the council. A company is found to be defrauding it's customers by using a service offered by the airport and you just brush it aside. Do you think that this company would have located it's morals and declared that this practice had ceased, if they hadn't been exposed?[/p][/quote]how is anything in what I have wrote wrong or untrue.. its in the article above...?? jayman

9:47am Wed 27 Feb 13

Lady Plowden says...

Alastair Welch is shocked at sharp practice?

He doesn't do irony, does he?
Alastair Welch is shocked at sharp practice? He doesn't do irony, does he? Lady Plowden

9:56am Wed 27 Feb 13

jayman says...

from the above article

"However, when an undercover reporter rang to book its services, no discounts or references to the airport’s deal were offered."

why should they.. I was under the assumption that businesses operated within a free market. its the customers job to shop around.

unless the SACP specifically stated that cars where stored on there own premises then nothing un-proper has occurred.

from the above article

dozens of bookings had been made by SACP.

so the airport knew SACP where booking the spaces!!!!!

amazing!!!
from the above article "However, when an undercover reporter rang to book its services, no discounts or references to the airport’s deal were offered." why should they.. I was under the assumption that businesses operated within a free market. its the customers job to shop around. unless the SACP specifically stated that cars where stored on there own premises then nothing un-proper has occurred. from the above article dozens of bookings had been made by SACP. so the airport knew SACP where booking the spaces!!!!! amazing!!! jayman

10:00am Wed 27 Feb 13

Dinosaur_Jr says...

jayman wrote:
Dinosaur_Jr wrote:
jayman wrote:
well, the company has now declared that it is not doing this again and has sacked the member of staff responsible.
Wow, just wow.

The airport just as much as blinks at the wrong time and you are on this site like a shot making outrageous, unsubstantiated often bordering on libelous comments about the airport, their owners and the council.

A company is found to be defrauding it's customers by using a service offered by the airport and you just brush it aside.

Do you think that this company would have located it's morals and declared that this practice had ceased, if they hadn't been exposed?
how is anything in what I have wrote wrong or untrue.. its in the article above...??
You obviously either didn't read my post or decided to ignore it's content.

Where did I question the accuracy of the content of your first post?

The objective of my post was weigh your response to this malpractice against other posts you regularly make concerning the airports activities, which are often outrageous and without evidence.

If you had read my post you would see that I am questioning the validity of your opinion on this subject based on your comments in previous related discussions.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dinosaur_Jr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well, the company has now declared that it is not doing this again and has sacked the member of staff responsible.[/p][/quote]Wow, just wow. The airport just as much as blinks at the wrong time and you are on this site like a shot making outrageous, unsubstantiated often bordering on libelous comments about the airport, their owners and the council. A company is found to be defrauding it's customers by using a service offered by the airport and you just brush it aside. Do you think that this company would have located it's morals and declared that this practice had ceased, if they hadn't been exposed?[/p][/quote]how is anything in what I have wrote wrong or untrue.. its in the article above...??[/p][/quote]You obviously either didn't read my post or decided to ignore it's content. Where did I question the accuracy of the content of your first post? The objective of my post was weigh your response to this malpractice against other posts you regularly make concerning the airports activities, which are often outrageous and without evidence. If you had read my post you would see that I am questioning the validity of your opinion on this subject based on your comments in previous related discussions. Dinosaur_Jr

10:01am Wed 27 Feb 13

DogsMessInLeigh says...

so who payed for the £1 booking fee to secure the free spots...., the airport took the booking so must of known something was up if a block booking was made, did the parking firm fall right into the hands of the Airport i wonder.
is it just a bit cheeky or forward thinking by the manager, and didn't the parking company notice a shortfall of cars in their own parking place that where ferried off to the airport parking, surely they are not that busy that they wouldn't notice.
its tough out there and this must be the last thing they need...i mean think about it...if the parking firm charged for parking and have space where they operate why leave them elsewhere.....what did they really gain..? (apart from all this mess)
so who payed for the £1 booking fee to secure the free spots...., the airport took the booking so must of known something was up if a block booking was made, did the parking firm fall right into the hands of the Airport i wonder. is it just a bit cheeky or forward thinking by the manager, and didn't the parking company notice a shortfall of cars in their own parking place that where ferried off to the airport parking, surely they are not that busy that they wouldn't notice. its tough out there and this must be the last thing they need...i mean think about it...if the parking firm charged for parking and have space where they operate why leave them elsewhere.....what did they really gain..? (apart from all this mess) DogsMessInLeigh

10:08am Wed 27 Feb 13

A Pedant says...

Jayman

A couple of points...

"unless the SACP specifically stated that cars where stored on there own premises then nothing un-proper has occurred. "

There is if they gave customers the impression that their vehicles were being stored on the premises, as it clearly does on the SACP website - it's called misrepresentation.

"from the above article

dozens of bookings had been made by SACP.

so the airport knew SACP where booking the spaces!!!!!"

From the same article...

"When airport staff realised what was happening, they logged the cars’ registration plates on the car park entry-and-exit system, forcing the firm to pay the full price when they attempted to leave. "

Clearly it was at this point that it becames apparent what was happening.
Jayman A couple of points... "unless the SACP specifically stated that cars where stored on there own premises then nothing un-proper has occurred. " There is if they gave customers the impression that their vehicles were being stored on the premises, as it clearly does on the SACP website - it's called misrepresentation. "from the above article dozens of bookings had been made by SACP. so the airport knew SACP where booking the spaces!!!!!" From the same article... "When airport staff realised what was happening, they logged the cars’ registration plates on the car park entry-and-exit system, forcing the firm to pay the full price when they attempted to leave. " Clearly it was at this point that it becames apparent what was happening. A Pedant

10:14am Wed 27 Feb 13

jayman says...

Dinosaur_Jr wrote:
jayman wrote:
Dinosaur_Jr wrote:
jayman wrote:
well, the company has now declared that it is not doing this again and has sacked the member of staff responsible.
Wow, just wow.

The airport just as much as blinks at the wrong time and you are on this site like a shot making outrageous, unsubstantiated often bordering on libelous comments about the airport, their owners and the council.

A company is found to be defrauding it's customers by using a service offered by the airport and you just brush it aside.

Do you think that this company would have located it's morals and declared that this practice had ceased, if they hadn't been exposed?
how is anything in what I have wrote wrong or untrue.. its in the article above...??
You obviously either didn't read my post or decided to ignore it's content.

Where did I question the accuracy of the content of your first post?

The objective of my post was weigh your response to this malpractice against other posts you regularly make concerning the airports activities, which are often outrageous and without evidence.

If you had read my post you would see that I am questioning the validity of your opinion on this subject based on your comments in previous related discussions.
unless I declare in context that what I am writing is factual then everything else i write is 'opinion'..

for instance, if I say..

"there is a factory down the road who I know is dumping waste on a school playing field"

this would get me into trouble. however, if I say.

"its 'probably' the factory down the road that dumping all the waste on the playing field"

This gives the factory a right to reply and probable innocents as its just my opinion, which we are all still free to express in this country..
[quote][p][bold]Dinosaur_Jr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dinosaur_Jr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well, the company has now declared that it is not doing this again and has sacked the member of staff responsible.[/p][/quote]Wow, just wow. The airport just as much as blinks at the wrong time and you are on this site like a shot making outrageous, unsubstantiated often bordering on libelous comments about the airport, their owners and the council. A company is found to be defrauding it's customers by using a service offered by the airport and you just brush it aside. Do you think that this company would have located it's morals and declared that this practice had ceased, if they hadn't been exposed?[/p][/quote]how is anything in what I have wrote wrong or untrue.. its in the article above...??[/p][/quote]You obviously either didn't read my post or decided to ignore it's content. Where did I question the accuracy of the content of your first post? The objective of my post was weigh your response to this malpractice against other posts you regularly make concerning the airports activities, which are often outrageous and without evidence. If you had read my post you would see that I am questioning the validity of your opinion on this subject based on your comments in previous related discussions.[/p][/quote]unless I declare in context that what I am writing is factual then everything else i write is 'opinion'.. for instance, if I say.. "there is a factory down the road who I know is dumping waste on a school playing field" this would get me into trouble. however, if I say. "its 'probably' the factory down the road that dumping all the waste on the playing field" This gives the factory a right to reply and probable innocents as its just my opinion, which we are all still free to express in this country.. jayman

10:23am Wed 27 Feb 13

Nebs says...

This is the least of the airports worries. Maybe this parking story was released to deflect interest from:

http://rochford.jdi-
consult.net/jaap/rea
ddoc.php?docid=187

Consultation ends 10th April 2013.
This is the least of the airports worries. Maybe this parking story was released to deflect interest from: http://rochford.jdi- consult.net/jaap/rea ddoc.php?docid=187 Consultation ends 10th April 2013. Nebs

10:37am Wed 27 Feb 13

Dinosaur_Jr says...

jayman wrote:
Dinosaur_Jr wrote:
jayman wrote:
Dinosaur_Jr wrote:
jayman wrote:
well, the company has now declared that it is not doing this again and has sacked the member of staff responsible.
Wow, just wow.

The airport just as much as blinks at the wrong time and you are on this site like a shot making outrageous, unsubstantiated often bordering on libelous comments about the airport, their owners and the council.

A company is found to be defrauding it's customers by using a service offered by the airport and you just brush it aside.

Do you think that this company would have located it's morals and declared that this practice had ceased, if they hadn't been exposed?
how is anything in what I have wrote wrong or untrue.. its in the article above...??
You obviously either didn't read my post or decided to ignore it's content.

Where did I question the accuracy of the content of your first post?

The objective of my post was weigh your response to this malpractice against other posts you regularly make concerning the airports activities, which are often outrageous and without evidence.

If you had read my post you would see that I am questioning the validity of your opinion on this subject based on your comments in previous related discussions.
unless I declare in context that what I am writing is factual then everything else i write is 'opinion'..

for instance, if I say..

"there is a factory down the road who I know is dumping waste on a school playing field"

this would get me into trouble. however, if I say.

"its 'probably' the factory down the road that dumping all the waste on the playing field"

This gives the factory a right to reply and probable innocents as its just my opinion, which we are all still free to express in this country..
Quite right about stating a point as an opinion, but doesn't make that opinion any less outrageous. And continuously expressing opinions with little or no evidence reduced their currency.

By typing the following into Google will show evidence of opinions with no evidence:

jayman brown envelopes

But lets take it at face value that 'just asking questions' is your style, your way of trying to uncover the truth. It puts you with such distinguished commentators such as Glenn Beck on the Fox News network in the US.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dinosaur_Jr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dinosaur_Jr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well, the company has now declared that it is not doing this again and has sacked the member of staff responsible.[/p][/quote]Wow, just wow. The airport just as much as blinks at the wrong time and you are on this site like a shot making outrageous, unsubstantiated often bordering on libelous comments about the airport, their owners and the council. A company is found to be defrauding it's customers by using a service offered by the airport and you just brush it aside. Do you think that this company would have located it's morals and declared that this practice had ceased, if they hadn't been exposed?[/p][/quote]how is anything in what I have wrote wrong or untrue.. its in the article above...??[/p][/quote]You obviously either didn't read my post or decided to ignore it's content. Where did I question the accuracy of the content of your first post? The objective of my post was weigh your response to this malpractice against other posts you regularly make concerning the airports activities, which are often outrageous and without evidence. If you had read my post you would see that I am questioning the validity of your opinion on this subject based on your comments in previous related discussions.[/p][/quote]unless I declare in context that what I am writing is factual then everything else i write is 'opinion'.. for instance, if I say.. "there is a factory down the road who I know is dumping waste on a school playing field" this would get me into trouble. however, if I say. "its 'probably' the factory down the road that dumping all the waste on the playing field" This gives the factory a right to reply and probable innocents as its just my opinion, which we are all still free to express in this country..[/p][/quote]Quite right about stating a point as an opinion, but doesn't make that opinion any less outrageous. And continuously expressing opinions with little or no evidence reduced their currency. By typing the following into Google will show evidence of opinions with no evidence: jayman brown envelopes But lets take it at face value that 'just asking questions' is your style, your way of trying to uncover the truth. It puts you with such distinguished commentators such as Glenn Beck on the Fox News network in the US. Dinosaur_Jr

10:55am Wed 27 Feb 13

disenfranchisedpast says...

“I think the member of staff thought the airport was being cheeky by taking away the free drop-off lay-by, so they would do this in return.

Wow

So the airport temporarly closes the drop of layby because of the work they are doing on the terminal expansion and they are being "cheeky"

Obviously the right response will be to mislead customers and defraud the airport.

Coupled with their insurance related issues last year it hardly fills one with confidence over the service this carparking company provide
“I think the member of staff thought the airport was being cheeky by taking away the free drop-off lay-by, so they would do this in return. Wow So the airport temporarly closes the drop of layby because of the work they are doing on the terminal expansion and they are being "cheeky" Obviously the right response will be to mislead customers and defraud the airport. Coupled with their insurance related issues last year it hardly fills one with confidence over the service this carparking company provide disenfranchisedpast

1:08pm Wed 27 Feb 13

Joe Wildman-Clark says...

From SACP website:

How far will my car go? And where will it go?

Your car will be going to our secure gated CCTV operated car park - which is 8 minutes away from Southend Airport. We do not openly discuss our location of where our car park is as we do not want to attract unwanted visitors.


There is NOTHING about another location being used.


I found you could only book one place at a time in the car park during the free months, also if it is true that they were shuttling the cars out one behind the other then could this amount to a fraud against the airport?

As I said prehaps the airport should seriously look at obtaining an injunction against the compnay operating the pick up/drop off service from their land.
From SACP website: How far will my car go? And where will it go? Your car will be going to our secure gated CCTV operated car park - which is 8 minutes away from Southend Airport. We do not openly discuss our location of where our car park is as we do not want to attract unwanted visitors. There is NOTHING about another location being used. I found you could only book one place at a time in the car park during the free months, also if it is true that they were shuttling the cars out one behind the other then could this amount to a fraud against the airport? As I said prehaps the airport should seriously look at obtaining an injunction against the compnay operating the pick up/drop off service from their land. Joe Wildman-Clark

1:12pm Wed 27 Feb 13

jayman says...

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
From SACP website:

How far will my car go? And where will it go?

Your car will be going to our secure gated CCTV operated car park - which is 8 minutes away from Southend Airport. We do not openly discuss our location of where our car park is as we do not want to attract unwanted visitors.


There is NOTHING about another location being used.


I found you could only book one place at a time in the car park during the free months, also if it is true that they were shuttling the cars out one behind the other then could this amount to a fraud against the airport?

As I said prehaps the airport should seriously look at obtaining an injunction against the compnay operating the pick up/drop off service from their land.
the land belongs to Southend council. stobarts just rent it..
[quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: From SACP website: How far will my car go? And where will it go? Your car will be going to our secure gated CCTV operated car park - which is 8 minutes away from Southend Airport. We do not openly discuss our location of where our car park is as we do not want to attract unwanted visitors. There is NOTHING about another location being used. I found you could only book one place at a time in the car park during the free months, also if it is true that they were shuttling the cars out one behind the other then could this amount to a fraud against the airport? As I said prehaps the airport should seriously look at obtaining an injunction against the compnay operating the pick up/drop off service from their land.[/p][/quote]the land belongs to Southend council. stobarts just rent it.. jayman

1:47pm Wed 27 Feb 13

Joe Wildman-Clark says...

jayman wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
From SACP website:

How far will my car go? And where will it go?

Your car will be going to our secure gated CCTV operated car park - which is 8 minutes away from Southend Airport. We do not openly discuss our location of where our car park is as we do not want to attract unwanted visitors.


There is NOTHING about another location being used.


I found you could only book one place at a time in the car park during the free months, also if it is true that they were shuttling the cars out one behind the other then could this amount to a fraud against the airport?

As I said prehaps the airport should seriously look at obtaining an injunction against the compnay operating the pick up/drop off service from their land.
the land belongs to Southend council. stobarts just rent it..
Yes the Council own the land but the land is rented by Stobarts which gives them a legal stand point to block people coming on to the land.

just because it is "public" but privately rented does not mean that anyone has the right to be on it at all times.

If the place closes at a certain time and someone is present after that time, they can then be considered to be trespassing.

If a visitor misbehaves at any time and refuses to leave when asked to do so by someone with a right to do so (usually the landowner or a representative) then the visitor becomes a trespasser because they no longer have the landowner's permission to be there, even if they entered legally.

The airport operators could ask the council to exercise the right seek an injunction against SAPC operating from the land.

What needs to be remembered is that at present SAPC are not permitted to be operating a car park from their present location,

Something else of intrest on the SACP website is:

Southend Airport Car Park Ltd cannot accept responsibility for loss or damage of property or vehicles.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: From SACP website: How far will my car go? And where will it go? Your car will be going to our secure gated CCTV operated car park - which is 8 minutes away from Southend Airport. We do not openly discuss our location of where our car park is as we do not want to attract unwanted visitors. There is NOTHING about another location being used. I found you could only book one place at a time in the car park during the free months, also if it is true that they were shuttling the cars out one behind the other then could this amount to a fraud against the airport? As I said prehaps the airport should seriously look at obtaining an injunction against the compnay operating the pick up/drop off service from their land.[/p][/quote]the land belongs to Southend council. stobarts just rent it..[/p][/quote]Yes the Council own the land but the land is rented by Stobarts which gives them a legal stand point to block people coming on to the land. just because it is "public" but privately rented does not mean that anyone has the right to be on it at all times. If the place closes at a certain time and someone is present after that time, they can then be considered to be trespassing. If a visitor misbehaves at any time and refuses to leave when asked to do so by someone with a right to do so (usually the landowner or a representative) then the visitor becomes a trespasser because they no longer have the landowner's permission to be there, even if they entered legally. The airport operators could ask the council to exercise the right seek an injunction against SAPC operating from the land. What needs to be remembered is that at present SAPC are not permitted to be operating a car park from their present location, Something else of intrest on the SACP website is: Southend Airport Car Park Ltd cannot accept responsibility for loss or damage of property or vehicles. Joe Wildman-Clark

2:08pm Wed 27 Feb 13

SARFENDMAN says...

Have noticed that you get 5 mins only at the airport to collect passengers after that £2.50. A van blocks of the terminal building so you have to pay up. Guess it'll soon be charge for drop off. Shame that cars are seen as cash cows whether short or long term parking. Think Southend Airport is great but not let's go the route of Stansted policy with cars as seen in recent months.
Have noticed that you get 5 mins only at the airport to collect passengers after that £2.50. A van blocks of the terminal building so you have to pay up. Guess it'll soon be charge for drop off. Shame that cars are seen as cash cows whether short or long term parking. Think Southend Airport is great but not let's go the route of Stansted policy with cars as seen in recent months. SARFENDMAN

2:36pm Wed 27 Feb 13

supermadmax says...

I view this has entrepreneurial not a scam.

In simple terms they have acquired something & sold it for a profit & no laws have been broken.
I view this has entrepreneurial not a scam. In simple terms they have acquired something & sold it for a profit & no laws have been broken. supermadmax

2:45pm Wed 27 Feb 13

Joe Wildman-Clark says...

supermadmax wrote:
I view this has entrepreneurial not a scam.

In simple terms they have acquired something & sold it for a profit & no laws have been broken.
Whilst no laws have been broken, the contract agreed with the car owners states that car will be parked within SACP own off site car park, this is clearly stated on their own website, however a number of cars were parked within the airports car park, so the contract has been voilated and therefore owners could claim against the company for breach of contact.

The planning laws have been broken as permission was not obtained before the service started operating.
[quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: I view this has entrepreneurial not a scam. In simple terms they have acquired something & sold it for a profit & no laws have been broken.[/p][/quote]Whilst no laws have been broken, the contract agreed with the car owners states that car will be parked within SACP own off site car park, this is clearly stated on their own website, however a number of cars were parked within the airports car park, so the contract has been voilated and therefore owners could claim against the company for breach of contact. The planning laws have been broken as permission was not obtained before the service started operating. Joe Wildman-Clark

2:54pm Wed 27 Feb 13

andy:) says...

If they were tailgating multiple cars in/out the clearly there was more than one rouge employee, a pity as the compnay clearly got some sympathy after being messed around by the council but I suspect all of that has dissapeared.

Andy
If they were tailgating multiple cars in/out the clearly there was more than one rouge employee, a pity as the compnay clearly got some sympathy after being messed around by the council but I suspect all of that has dissapeared. Andy andy:)

3:14pm Wed 27 Feb 13

Letmetryagain says...

I imagine the sacked employees have already been taken back on ?
I imagine the sacked employees have already been taken back on ? Letmetryagain

3:45pm Wed 27 Feb 13

Joe Wildman-Clark says...

andy:) wrote:
If they were tailgating multiple cars in/out the clearly there was more than one rouge employee, a pity as the compnay clearly got some sympathy after being messed around by the council but I suspect all of that has dissapeared.

Andy
How have the council "messed" them about, when the council have only adhered to planning laws and regulations, would you have been happy for the council to have turned the proverbial blind eye to a breach of planning law?
[quote][p][bold]andy:)[/bold] wrote: If they were tailgating multiple cars in/out the clearly there was more than one rouge employee, a pity as the compnay clearly got some sympathy after being messed around by the council but I suspect all of that has dissapeared. Andy[/p][/quote]How have the council "messed" them about, when the council have only adhered to planning laws and regulations, would you have been happy for the council to have turned the proverbial blind eye to a breach of planning law? Joe Wildman-Clark

4:32pm Wed 27 Feb 13

A Pedant says...

supermadmax says...

I view this has entrepreneurial not a scam.

In simple terms they have acquired something & sold it for a profit & no laws have been broken.

In addition to Joe W-C's reply, if the vehicles were kept at a premises other than SACP's then their insurance is extremely unlikely to be valid for the cars parked in the airport's own car park
supermadmax says... I view this has entrepreneurial not a scam. In simple terms they have acquired something & sold it for a profit & no laws have been broken. In addition to Joe W-C's reply, if the vehicles were kept at a premises other than SACP's then their insurance is extremely unlikely to be valid for the cars parked in the airport's own car park A Pedant

5:21pm Wed 27 Feb 13

Joe Wildman-Clark says...

A Pedant wrote:
supermadmax says...

I view this has entrepreneurial not a scam.

In simple terms they have acquired something & sold it for a profit & no laws have been broken.

In addition to Joe W-C's reply, if the vehicles were kept at a premises other than SACP's then their insurance is extremely unlikely to be valid for the cars parked in the airport's own car park
On thae SAPC website it states: Southend Airport Car Park ltd can not acept responsibility for any loss or damage to property or vehicles.

Not worked in the car parking sector but I would have thought such a business should have it's own cover protecting cars being driven by it's employees or stored on it's land, instead of the car owner having to claim on their insurance.
[quote][p][bold]A Pedant[/bold] wrote: supermadmax says... I view this has entrepreneurial not a scam. In simple terms they have acquired something & sold it for a profit & no laws have been broken. In addition to Joe W-C's reply, if the vehicles were kept at a premises other than SACP's then their insurance is extremely unlikely to be valid for the cars parked in the airport's own car park[/p][/quote]On thae SAPC website it states: Southend Airport Car Park ltd can not acept responsibility for any loss or damage to property or vehicles. Not worked in the car parking sector but I would have thought such a business should have it's own cover protecting cars being driven by it's employees or stored on it's land, instead of the car owner having to claim on their insurance. Joe Wildman-Clark

5:46pm Wed 27 Feb 13

Noddy_99 says...

Do you know.....I just wish that those who comment within this forum took the time to proof read what they type before hitting 'send'

The standard of English is appalling, basic errors... to instead of too, there instead of their, rouge instead of rogue... the list is not exhaustive.

The same may be directed at the Echo itself..... errors abound daily!!.
Do you know.....I just wish that those who comment within this forum took the time to proof read what they type before hitting 'send' The standard of English is appalling, basic errors... to instead of too, there instead of their, rouge instead of rogue... the list is not exhaustive. The same may be directed at the Echo itself..... errors abound daily!!. Noddy_99

6:50pm Wed 27 Feb 13

jayman says...

YeS, I Knoow. Anoying isant it.
YeS, I Knoow. Anoying isant it. jayman

8:03pm Wed 27 Feb 13

Joe Wildman-Clark says...

jayman wrote:
YeS, I Knoow. Anoying isant it.
Ewe kan shay that agan the leval of paw spelling on hear is really bad,

do u no u kan use MS word and kut an paste dokuments aftor doing a spelcheque on them.

it not take to long too do witch is cool cos it iz kwick to kut an paste...


yes it was a looooooong day at work doing Health and Safety assesments. :(
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: YeS, I Knoow. Anoying isant it.[/p][/quote]Ewe kan shay that agan the leval of paw spelling on hear is really bad, do u no u kan use MS word and kut an paste dokuments aftor doing a spelcheque on them. it not take to long too do witch is cool cos it iz kwick to kut an paste... yes it was a looooooong day at work doing Health and Safety assesments. :( Joe Wildman-Clark

8:53pm Wed 27 Feb 13

BASILBRUSH says...

Jayman you're double standards make me laugh and your hatred of the Airport must be exhausting.

This is no different to not declaring Horse meat in cheap 'Beef' Lasagne products.
The customer is getting a product they did not expect, or receive when they chose to purchase the product.

Ms Larman says "“I think the member of staff thought the airport was being cheeky by taking away the free drop-off lay-by, so they would do this in return.

Except the Free drop off has not been removed, it has been 'moved' to the Car park instead due to the new Terminal works.

Quote from their own site, "Our drivers have been carefully selected to ensure a safe transfer from Southend Airport to our secure car" park.".
Note:- Not "Southend Airports own Long Stay."

"Your car will be going to our secure gated CCTV operated car park - which is 8 minutes away from Southend Airport.".
Note:- Not "Southend Airports own Long stay Car park which by the way is free during this period."

There is no smoke without fire.... Good luck to them, but SACP dont seem to be helping themselves if they want to prove themselves recently.
Jayman you're double standards make me laugh and your hatred of the Airport must be exhausting. This is no different to not declaring Horse meat in cheap 'Beef' Lasagne products. The customer is getting a product they did not expect, or receive when they chose to purchase the product. Ms Larman says "“I think the member of staff thought the airport was being cheeky by taking away the free drop-off lay-by, so they would do this in return. Except the Free drop off has not been removed, it has been 'moved' to the Car park instead due to the new Terminal works. Quote from their own site, "Our drivers have been carefully selected to ensure a safe transfer from Southend Airport to our secure car" park.". Note:- Not "Southend Airports own Long Stay." "Your car will be going to our secure gated CCTV operated car park - which is 8 minutes away from Southend Airport.". Note:- Not "Southend Airports own Long stay Car park which by the way is free during this period." There is no smoke without fire.... Good luck to them, but SACP dont seem to be helping themselves if they want to prove themselves recently. BASILBRUSH

9:51pm Wed 27 Feb 13

BASILBRUSH says...

your
your BASILBRUSH

10:56pm Wed 27 Feb 13

jayman says...

Dinosaur_Jr wrote:
jayman wrote:
Dinosaur_Jr wrote:
jayman wrote:
Dinosaur_Jr wrote:
jayman wrote:
well, the company has now declared that it is not doing this again and has sacked the member of staff responsible.
Wow, just wow.

The airport just as much as blinks at the wrong time and you are on this site like a shot making outrageous, unsubstantiated often bordering on libelous comments about the airport, their owners and the council.

A company is found to be defrauding it's customers by using a service offered by the airport and you just brush it aside.

Do you think that this company would have located it's morals and declared that this practice had ceased, if they hadn't been exposed?
how is anything in what I have wrote wrong or untrue.. its in the article above...??
You obviously either didn't read my post or decided to ignore it's content.

Where did I question the accuracy of the content of your first post?

The objective of my post was weigh your response to this malpractice against other posts you regularly make concerning the airports activities, which are often outrageous and without evidence.

If you had read my post you would see that I am questioning the validity of your opinion on this subject based on your comments in previous related discussions.
unless I declare in context that what I am writing is factual then everything else i write is 'opinion'..

for instance, if I say..

"there is a factory down the road who I know is dumping waste on a school playing field"

this would get me into trouble. however, if I say.

"its 'probably' the factory down the road that dumping all the waste on the playing field"

This gives the factory a right to reply and probable innocents as its just my opinion, which we are all still free to express in this country..
Quite right about stating a point as an opinion, but doesn't make that opinion any less outrageous. And continuously expressing opinions with little or no evidence reduced their currency.

By typing the following into Google will show evidence of opinions with no evidence:

jayman brown envelopes

But lets take it at face value that 'just asking questions' is your style, your way of trying to uncover the truth. It puts you with such distinguished commentators such as Glenn Beck on the Fox News network in the US.
as for envelopes. well, envelopes can contain all manner of things, love letters for instance, or perhaps a get well soon card. sometimes they contain a ton of cash, anything really!

lol.

as for america.

America is a country that has no universal healthcare provision and has an appalling education system. There political system is a joke and there political commentators are parallel to the joke..

The same system that the Tories are moving us to. But that's another topic for another thread.
[quote][p][bold]Dinosaur_Jr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dinosaur_Jr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dinosaur_Jr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well, the company has now declared that it is not doing this again and has sacked the member of staff responsible.[/p][/quote]Wow, just wow. The airport just as much as blinks at the wrong time and you are on this site like a shot making outrageous, unsubstantiated often bordering on libelous comments about the airport, their owners and the council. A company is found to be defrauding it's customers by using a service offered by the airport and you just brush it aside. Do you think that this company would have located it's morals and declared that this practice had ceased, if they hadn't been exposed?[/p][/quote]how is anything in what I have wrote wrong or untrue.. its in the article above...??[/p][/quote]You obviously either didn't read my post or decided to ignore it's content. Where did I question the accuracy of the content of your first post? The objective of my post was weigh your response to this malpractice against other posts you regularly make concerning the airports activities, which are often outrageous and without evidence. If you had read my post you would see that I am questioning the validity of your opinion on this subject based on your comments in previous related discussions.[/p][/quote]unless I declare in context that what I am writing is factual then everything else i write is 'opinion'.. for instance, if I say.. "there is a factory down the road who I know is dumping waste on a school playing field" this would get me into trouble. however, if I say. "its 'probably' the factory down the road that dumping all the waste on the playing field" This gives the factory a right to reply and probable innocents as its just my opinion, which we are all still free to express in this country..[/p][/quote]Quite right about stating a point as an opinion, but doesn't make that opinion any less outrageous. And continuously expressing opinions with little or no evidence reduced their currency. By typing the following into Google will show evidence of opinions with no evidence: jayman brown envelopes But lets take it at face value that 'just asking questions' is your style, your way of trying to uncover the truth. It puts you with such distinguished commentators such as Glenn Beck on the Fox News network in the US.[/p][/quote]as for envelopes. well, envelopes can contain all manner of things, love letters for instance, or perhaps a get well soon card. sometimes they contain a ton of cash, anything really! lol. as for america. America is a country that has no universal healthcare provision and has an appalling education system. There political system is a joke and there political commentators are parallel to the joke.. The same system that the Tories are moving us to. But that's another topic for another thread. jayman

10:58pm Wed 27 Feb 13

jayman says...

jayman wrote:
Dinosaur_Jr wrote:
jayman wrote:
Dinosaur_Jr wrote:
jayman wrote:
Dinosaur_Jr wrote:
jayman wrote:
well, the company has now declared that it is not doing this again and has sacked the member of staff responsible.
Wow, just wow.

The airport just as much as blinks at the wrong time and you are on this site like a shot making outrageous, unsubstantiated often bordering on libelous comments about the airport, their owners and the council.

A company is found to be defrauding it's customers by using a service offered by the airport and you just brush it aside.

Do you think that this company would have located it's morals and declared that this practice had ceased, if they hadn't been exposed?
how is anything in what I have wrote wrong or untrue.. its in the article above...??
You obviously either didn't read my post or decided to ignore it's content.

Where did I question the accuracy of the content of your first post?

The objective of my post was weigh your response to this malpractice against other posts you regularly make concerning the airports activities, which are often outrageous and without evidence.

If you had read my post you would see that I am questioning the validity of your opinion on this subject based on your comments in previous related discussions.
unless I declare in context that what I am writing is factual then everything else i write is 'opinion'..

for instance, if I say..

"there is a factory down the road who I know is dumping waste on a school playing field"

this would get me into trouble. however, if I say.

"its 'probably' the factory down the road that dumping all the waste on the playing field"

This gives the factory a right to reply and probable innocents as its just my opinion, which we are all still free to express in this country..
Quite right about stating a point as an opinion, but doesn't make that opinion any less outrageous. And continuously expressing opinions with little or no evidence reduced their currency.

By typing the following into Google will show evidence of opinions with no evidence:

jayman brown envelopes

But lets take it at face value that 'just asking questions' is your style, your way of trying to uncover the truth. It puts you with such distinguished commentators such as Glenn Beck on the Fox News network in the US.
as for envelopes. well, envelopes can contain all manner of things, love letters for instance, or perhaps a get well soon card. sometimes they contain a ton of cash, anything really!

lol.

as for america.

America is a country that has no universal healthcare provision and has an appalling education system. There political system is a joke and there political commentators are parallel to the joke..

The same system that the Tories are moving us to. But that's another topic for another thread.
oh and for clarity and correct spelling issues. 'there' should have been 'their'
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dinosaur_Jr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dinosaur_Jr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dinosaur_Jr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well, the company has now declared that it is not doing this again and has sacked the member of staff responsible.[/p][/quote]Wow, just wow. The airport just as much as blinks at the wrong time and you are on this site like a shot making outrageous, unsubstantiated often bordering on libelous comments about the airport, their owners and the council. A company is found to be defrauding it's customers by using a service offered by the airport and you just brush it aside. Do you think that this company would have located it's morals and declared that this practice had ceased, if they hadn't been exposed?[/p][/quote]how is anything in what I have wrote wrong or untrue.. its in the article above...??[/p][/quote]You obviously either didn't read my post or decided to ignore it's content. Where did I question the accuracy of the content of your first post? The objective of my post was weigh your response to this malpractice against other posts you regularly make concerning the airports activities, which are often outrageous and without evidence. If you had read my post you would see that I am questioning the validity of your opinion on this subject based on your comments in previous related discussions.[/p][/quote]unless I declare in context that what I am writing is factual then everything else i write is 'opinion'.. for instance, if I say.. "there is a factory down the road who I know is dumping waste on a school playing field" this would get me into trouble. however, if I say. "its 'probably' the factory down the road that dumping all the waste on the playing field" This gives the factory a right to reply and probable innocents as its just my opinion, which we are all still free to express in this country..[/p][/quote]Quite right about stating a point as an opinion, but doesn't make that opinion any less outrageous. And continuously expressing opinions with little or no evidence reduced their currency. By typing the following into Google will show evidence of opinions with no evidence: jayman brown envelopes But lets take it at face value that 'just asking questions' is your style, your way of trying to uncover the truth. It puts you with such distinguished commentators such as Glenn Beck on the Fox News network in the US.[/p][/quote]as for envelopes. well, envelopes can contain all manner of things, love letters for instance, or perhaps a get well soon card. sometimes they contain a ton of cash, anything really! lol. as for america. America is a country that has no universal healthcare provision and has an appalling education system. There political system is a joke and there political commentators are parallel to the joke.. The same system that the Tories are moving us to. But that's another topic for another thread.[/p][/quote]oh and for clarity and correct spelling issues. 'there' should have been 'their' jayman

10:58pm Wed 27 Feb 13

jayman says...

jayman wrote:
Dinosaur_Jr wrote:
jayman wrote:
Dinosaur_Jr wrote:
jayman wrote:
Dinosaur_Jr wrote:
jayman wrote:
well, the company has now declared that it is not doing this again and has sacked the member of staff responsible.
Wow, just wow.

The airport just as much as blinks at the wrong time and you are on this site like a shot making outrageous, unsubstantiated often bordering on libelous comments about the airport, their owners and the council.

A company is found to be defrauding it's customers by using a service offered by the airport and you just brush it aside.

Do you think that this company would have located it's morals and declared that this practice had ceased, if they hadn't been exposed?
how is anything in what I have wrote wrong or untrue.. its in the article above...??
You obviously either didn't read my post or decided to ignore it's content.

Where did I question the accuracy of the content of your first post?

The objective of my post was weigh your response to this malpractice against other posts you regularly make concerning the airports activities, which are often outrageous and without evidence.

If you had read my post you would see that I am questioning the validity of your opinion on this subject based on your comments in previous related discussions.
unless I declare in context that what I am writing is factual then everything else i write is 'opinion'..

for instance, if I say..

"there is a factory down the road who I know is dumping waste on a school playing field"

this would get me into trouble. however, if I say.

"its 'probably' the factory down the road that dumping all the waste on the playing field"

This gives the factory a right to reply and probable innocents as its just my opinion, which we are all still free to express in this country..
Quite right about stating a point as an opinion, but doesn't make that opinion any less outrageous. And continuously expressing opinions with little or no evidence reduced their currency.

By typing the following into Google will show evidence of opinions with no evidence:

jayman brown envelopes

But lets take it at face value that 'just asking questions' is your style, your way of trying to uncover the truth. It puts you with such distinguished commentators such as Glenn Beck on the Fox News network in the US.
as for envelopes. well, envelopes can contain all manner of things, love letters for instance, or perhaps a get well soon card. sometimes they contain a ton of cash, anything really!

lol.

as for america.

America is a country that has no universal healthcare provision and has an appalling education system. There political system is a joke and there political commentators are parallel to the joke..

The same system that the Tories are moving us to. But that's another topic for another thread.
oh and for clarity and correct spelling issues. 'there' should have been 'their'
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dinosaur_Jr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dinosaur_Jr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dinosaur_Jr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well, the company has now declared that it is not doing this again and has sacked the member of staff responsible.[/p][/quote]Wow, just wow. The airport just as much as blinks at the wrong time and you are on this site like a shot making outrageous, unsubstantiated often bordering on libelous comments about the airport, their owners and the council. A company is found to be defrauding it's customers by using a service offered by the airport and you just brush it aside. Do you think that this company would have located it's morals and declared that this practice had ceased, if they hadn't been exposed?[/p][/quote]how is anything in what I have wrote wrong or untrue.. its in the article above...??[/p][/quote]You obviously either didn't read my post or decided to ignore it's content. Where did I question the accuracy of the content of your first post? The objective of my post was weigh your response to this malpractice against other posts you regularly make concerning the airports activities, which are often outrageous and without evidence. If you had read my post you would see that I am questioning the validity of your opinion on this subject based on your comments in previous related discussions.[/p][/quote]unless I declare in context that what I am writing is factual then everything else i write is 'opinion'.. for instance, if I say.. "there is a factory down the road who I know is dumping waste on a school playing field" this would get me into trouble. however, if I say. "its 'probably' the factory down the road that dumping all the waste on the playing field" This gives the factory a right to reply and probable innocents as its just my opinion, which we are all still free to express in this country..[/p][/quote]Quite right about stating a point as an opinion, but doesn't make that opinion any less outrageous. And continuously expressing opinions with little or no evidence reduced their currency. By typing the following into Google will show evidence of opinions with no evidence: jayman brown envelopes But lets take it at face value that 'just asking questions' is your style, your way of trying to uncover the truth. It puts you with such distinguished commentators such as Glenn Beck on the Fox News network in the US.[/p][/quote]as for envelopes. well, envelopes can contain all manner of things, love letters for instance, or perhaps a get well soon card. sometimes they contain a ton of cash, anything really! lol. as for america. America is a country that has no universal healthcare provision and has an appalling education system. There political system is a joke and there political commentators are parallel to the joke.. The same system that the Tories are moving us to. But that's another topic for another thread.[/p][/quote]oh and for clarity and correct spelling issues. 'there' should have been 'their' jayman

11:13pm Wed 27 Feb 13

Joe Wildman-Clark says...

jayman wrote:
jayman wrote:
Dinosaur_Jr wrote:
jayman wrote:
Dinosaur_Jr wrote:
jayman wrote:
Dinosaur_Jr wrote:
jayman wrote:
well, the company has now declared that it is not doing this again and has sacked the member of staff responsible.
Wow, just wow.

The airport just as much as blinks at the wrong time and you are on this site like a shot making outrageous, unsubstantiated often bordering on libelous comments about the airport, their owners and the council.

A company is found to be defrauding it's customers by using a service offered by the airport and you just brush it aside.

Do you think that this company would have located it's morals and declared that this practice had ceased, if they hadn't been exposed?
how is anything in what I have wrote wrong or untrue.. its in the article above...??
You obviously either didn't read my post or decided to ignore it's content.

Where did I question the accuracy of the content of your first post?

The objective of my post was weigh your response to this malpractice against other posts you regularly make concerning the airports activities, which are often outrageous and without evidence.

If you had read my post you would see that I am questioning the validity of your opinion on this subject based on your comments in previous related discussions.
unless I declare in context that what I am writing is factual then everything else i write is 'opinion'..

for instance, if I say..

"there is a factory down the road who I know is dumping waste on a school playing field"

this would get me into trouble. however, if I say.

"its 'probably' the factory down the road that dumping all the waste on the playing field"

This gives the factory a right to reply and probable innocents as its just my opinion, which we are all still free to express in this country..
Quite right about stating a point as an opinion, but doesn't make that opinion any less outrageous. And continuously expressing opinions with little or no evidence reduced their currency.

By typing the following into Google will show evidence of opinions with no evidence:

jayman brown envelopes

But lets take it at face value that 'just asking questions' is your style, your way of trying to uncover the truth. It puts you with such distinguished commentators such as Glenn Beck on the Fox News network in the US.
as for envelopes. well, envelopes can contain all manner of things, love letters for instance, or perhaps a get well soon card. sometimes they contain a ton of cash, anything really!

lol.

as for america.

America is a country that has no universal healthcare provision and has an appalling education system. There political system is a joke and there political commentators are parallel to the joke..

The same system that the Tories are moving us to. But that's another topic for another thread.
oh and for clarity and correct spelling issues. 'there' should have been 'their'
BORING

When did this go on to schooling I thought it was about the Echo uncovering some shenanigans involving a member of staff that was employed by SAPC.

So Jayman do you agree with that this employee done?
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dinosaur_Jr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dinosaur_Jr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dinosaur_Jr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well, the company has now declared that it is not doing this again and has sacked the member of staff responsible.[/p][/quote]Wow, just wow. The airport just as much as blinks at the wrong time and you are on this site like a shot making outrageous, unsubstantiated often bordering on libelous comments about the airport, their owners and the council. A company is found to be defrauding it's customers by using a service offered by the airport and you just brush it aside. Do you think that this company would have located it's morals and declared that this practice had ceased, if they hadn't been exposed?[/p][/quote]how is anything in what I have wrote wrong or untrue.. its in the article above...??[/p][/quote]You obviously either didn't read my post or decided to ignore it's content. Where did I question the accuracy of the content of your first post? The objective of my post was weigh your response to this malpractice against other posts you regularly make concerning the airports activities, which are often outrageous and without evidence. If you had read my post you would see that I am questioning the validity of your opinion on this subject based on your comments in previous related discussions.[/p][/quote]unless I declare in context that what I am writing is factual then everything else i write is 'opinion'.. for instance, if I say.. "there is a factory down the road who I know is dumping waste on a school playing field" this would get me into trouble. however, if I say. "its 'probably' the factory down the road that dumping all the waste on the playing field" This gives the factory a right to reply and probable innocents as its just my opinion, which we are all still free to express in this country..[/p][/quote]Quite right about stating a point as an opinion, but doesn't make that opinion any less outrageous. And continuously expressing opinions with little or no evidence reduced their currency. By typing the following into Google will show evidence of opinions with no evidence: jayman brown envelopes But lets take it at face value that 'just asking questions' is your style, your way of trying to uncover the truth. It puts you with such distinguished commentators such as Glenn Beck on the Fox News network in the US.[/p][/quote]as for envelopes. well, envelopes can contain all manner of things, love letters for instance, or perhaps a get well soon card. sometimes they contain a ton of cash, anything really! lol. as for america. America is a country that has no universal healthcare provision and has an appalling education system. There political system is a joke and there political commentators are parallel to the joke.. The same system that the Tories are moving us to. But that's another topic for another thread.[/p][/quote]oh and for clarity and correct spelling issues. 'there' should have been 'their'[/p][/quote]BORING When did this go on to schooling I thought it was about the Echo uncovering some shenanigans involving a member of staff that was employed by SAPC. So Jayman do you agree with that this employee done? Joe Wildman-Clark

1:14am Thu 28 Feb 13

Nebs says...

SARFENDMAN wrote:
Have noticed that you get 5 mins only at the airport to collect passengers after that £2.50. A van blocks of the terminal building so you have to pay up. Guess it'll soon be charge for drop off. Shame that cars are seen as cash cows whether short or long term parking. Think Southend Airport is great but not let's go the route of Stansted policy with cars as seen in recent months.
It used to be 10 minutes.
[quote][p][bold]SARFENDMAN[/bold] wrote: Have noticed that you get 5 mins only at the airport to collect passengers after that £2.50. A van blocks of the terminal building so you have to pay up. Guess it'll soon be charge for drop off. Shame that cars are seen as cash cows whether short or long term parking. Think Southend Airport is great but not let's go the route of Stansted policy with cars as seen in recent months.[/p][/quote]It used to be 10 minutes. Nebs

8:21am Thu 28 Feb 13

jayman says...

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
jayman wrote:
jayman wrote:
Dinosaur_Jr wrote:
jayman wrote:
Dinosaur_Jr wrote:
jayman wrote:
Dinosaur_Jr wrote:
jayman wrote:
well, the company has now declared that it is not doing this again and has sacked the member of staff responsible.
Wow, just wow.

The airport just as much as blinks at the wrong time and you are on this site like a shot making outrageous, unsubstantiated often bordering on libelous comments about the airport, their owners and the council.

A company is found to be defrauding it's customers by using a service offered by the airport and you just brush it aside.

Do you think that this company would have located it's morals and declared that this practice had ceased, if they hadn't been exposed?
how is anything in what I have wrote wrong or untrue.. its in the article above...??
You obviously either didn't read my post or decided to ignore it's content.

Where did I question the accuracy of the content of your first post?

The objective of my post was weigh your response to this malpractice against other posts you regularly make concerning the airports activities, which are often outrageous and without evidence.

If you had read my post you would see that I am questioning the validity of your opinion on this subject based on your comments in previous related discussions.
unless I declare in context that what I am writing is factual then everything else i write is 'opinion'..

for instance, if I say..

"there is a factory down the road who I know is dumping waste on a school playing field"

this would get me into trouble. however, if I say.

"its 'probably' the factory down the road that dumping all the waste on the playing field"

This gives the factory a right to reply and probable innocents as its just my opinion, which we are all still free to express in this country..
Quite right about stating a point as an opinion, but doesn't make that opinion any less outrageous. And continuously expressing opinions with little or no evidence reduced their currency.

By typing the following into Google will show evidence of opinions with no evidence:

jayman brown envelopes

But lets take it at face value that 'just asking questions' is your style, your way of trying to uncover the truth. It puts you with such distinguished commentators such as Glenn Beck on the Fox News network in the US.
as for envelopes. well, envelopes can contain all manner of things, love letters for instance, or perhaps a get well soon card. sometimes they contain a ton of cash, anything really!

lol.

as for america.

America is a country that has no universal healthcare provision and has an appalling education system. There political system is a joke and there political commentators are parallel to the joke..

The same system that the Tories are moving us to. But that's another topic for another thread.
oh and for clarity and correct spelling issues. 'there' should have been 'their'
BORING

When did this go on to schooling I thought it was about the Echo uncovering some shenanigans involving a member of staff that was employed by SAPC.

So Jayman do you agree with that this employee done?
as I said above, the employee has been given the sack, I think this was the correct course of action.
[quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dinosaur_Jr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dinosaur_Jr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dinosaur_Jr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well, the company has now declared that it is not doing this again and has sacked the member of staff responsible.[/p][/quote]Wow, just wow. The airport just as much as blinks at the wrong time and you are on this site like a shot making outrageous, unsubstantiated often bordering on libelous comments about the airport, their owners and the council. A company is found to be defrauding it's customers by using a service offered by the airport and you just brush it aside. Do you think that this company would have located it's morals and declared that this practice had ceased, if they hadn't been exposed?[/p][/quote]how is anything in what I have wrote wrong or untrue.. its in the article above...??[/p][/quote]You obviously either didn't read my post or decided to ignore it's content. Where did I question the accuracy of the content of your first post? The objective of my post was weigh your response to this malpractice against other posts you regularly make concerning the airports activities, which are often outrageous and without evidence. If you had read my post you would see that I am questioning the validity of your opinion on this subject based on your comments in previous related discussions.[/p][/quote]unless I declare in context that what I am writing is factual then everything else i write is 'opinion'.. for instance, if I say.. "there is a factory down the road who I know is dumping waste on a school playing field" this would get me into trouble. however, if I say. "its 'probably' the factory down the road that dumping all the waste on the playing field" This gives the factory a right to reply and probable innocents as its just my opinion, which we are all still free to express in this country..[/p][/quote]Quite right about stating a point as an opinion, but doesn't make that opinion any less outrageous. And continuously expressing opinions with little or no evidence reduced their currency. By typing the following into Google will show evidence of opinions with no evidence: jayman brown envelopes But lets take it at face value that 'just asking questions' is your style, your way of trying to uncover the truth. It puts you with such distinguished commentators such as Glenn Beck on the Fox News network in the US.[/p][/quote]as for envelopes. well, envelopes can contain all manner of things, love letters for instance, or perhaps a get well soon card. sometimes they contain a ton of cash, anything really! lol. as for america. America is a country that has no universal healthcare provision and has an appalling education system. There political system is a joke and there political commentators are parallel to the joke.. The same system that the Tories are moving us to. But that's another topic for another thread.[/p][/quote]oh and for clarity and correct spelling issues. 'there' should have been 'their'[/p][/quote]BORING When did this go on to schooling I thought it was about the Echo uncovering some shenanigans involving a member of staff that was employed by SAPC. So Jayman do you agree with that this employee done?[/p][/quote]as I said above, the employee has been given the sack, I think this was the correct course of action. jayman

2:37pm Thu 28 Feb 13

jolllyboy says...

I note that the airport is now charging for the drop off laybye. - why ? thats not encouraging, I expect they need money having spent a lot and need more to expand but thats mean.
I note that the airport is now charging for the drop off laybye. - why ? thats not encouraging, I expect they need money having spent a lot and need more to expand but thats mean. jolllyboy

4:18pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Joe Wildman-Clark says...

jayman wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
jayman wrote:
jayman wrote:
Dinosaur_Jr wrote:
jayman wrote:
Dinosaur_Jr wrote:
jayman wrote:
Dinosaur_Jr wrote:
jayman wrote:
well, the company has now declared that it is not doing this again and has sacked the member of staff responsible.
Wow, just wow.

The airport just as much as blinks at the wrong time and you are on this site like a shot making outrageous, unsubstantiated often bordering on libelous comments about the airport, their owners and the council.

A company is found to be defrauding it's customers by using a service offered by the airport and you just brush it aside.

Do you think that this company would have located it's morals and declared that this practice had ceased, if they hadn't been exposed?
how is anything in what I have wrote wrong or untrue.. its in the article above...??
You obviously either didn't read my post or decided to ignore it's content.

Where did I question the accuracy of the content of your first post?

The objective of my post was weigh your response to this malpractice against other posts you regularly make concerning the airports activities, which are often outrageous and without evidence.

If you had read my post you would see that I am questioning the validity of your opinion on this subject based on your comments in previous related discussions.
unless I declare in context that what I am writing is factual then everything else i write is 'opinion'..

for instance, if I say..

"there is a factory down the road who I know is dumping waste on a school playing field"

this would get me into trouble. however, if I say.

"its 'probably' the factory down the road that dumping all the waste on the playing field"

This gives the factory a right to reply and probable innocents as its just my opinion, which we are all still free to express in this country..
Quite right about stating a point as an opinion, but doesn't make that opinion any less outrageous. And continuously expressing opinions with little or no evidence reduced their currency.

By typing the following into Google will show evidence of opinions with no evidence:

jayman brown envelopes

But lets take it at face value that 'just asking questions' is your style, your way of trying to uncover the truth. It puts you with such distinguished commentators such as Glenn Beck on the Fox News network in the US.
as for envelopes. well, envelopes can contain all manner of things, love letters for instance, or perhaps a get well soon card. sometimes they contain a ton of cash, anything really!

lol.

as for america.

America is a country that has no universal healthcare provision and has an appalling education system. There political system is a joke and there political commentators are parallel to the joke..

The same system that the Tories are moving us to. But that's another topic for another thread.
oh and for clarity and correct spelling issues. 'there' should have been 'their'
BORING

When did this go on to schooling I thought it was about the Echo uncovering some shenanigans involving a member of staff that was employed by SAPC.

So Jayman do you agree with that this employee done?
as I said above, the employee has been given the sack, I think this was the correct course of action.
What about the bit that states,

"Our reporters also discovered evidence of SACP tailgating customers’ vehicles bumper to bumper to sneak them through the airport’s car park barriers without paying"

So ONE person was sacked but what about the other that must have known what was going on?
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dinosaur_Jr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dinosaur_Jr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dinosaur_Jr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well, the company has now declared that it is not doing this again and has sacked the member of staff responsible.[/p][/quote]Wow, just wow. The airport just as much as blinks at the wrong time and you are on this site like a shot making outrageous, unsubstantiated often bordering on libelous comments about the airport, their owners and the council. A company is found to be defrauding it's customers by using a service offered by the airport and you just brush it aside. Do you think that this company would have located it's morals and declared that this practice had ceased, if they hadn't been exposed?[/p][/quote]how is anything in what I have wrote wrong or untrue.. its in the article above...??[/p][/quote]You obviously either didn't read my post or decided to ignore it's content. Where did I question the accuracy of the content of your first post? The objective of my post was weigh your response to this malpractice against other posts you regularly make concerning the airports activities, which are often outrageous and without evidence. If you had read my post you would see that I am questioning the validity of your opinion on this subject based on your comments in previous related discussions.[/p][/quote]unless I declare in context that what I am writing is factual then everything else i write is 'opinion'.. for instance, if I say.. "there is a factory down the road who I know is dumping waste on a school playing field" this would get me into trouble. however, if I say. "its 'probably' the factory down the road that dumping all the waste on the playing field" This gives the factory a right to reply and probable innocents as its just my opinion, which we are all still free to express in this country..[/p][/quote]Quite right about stating a point as an opinion, but doesn't make that opinion any less outrageous. And continuously expressing opinions with little or no evidence reduced their currency. By typing the following into Google will show evidence of opinions with no evidence: jayman brown envelopes But lets take it at face value that 'just asking questions' is your style, your way of trying to uncover the truth. It puts you with such distinguished commentators such as Glenn Beck on the Fox News network in the US.[/p][/quote]as for envelopes. well, envelopes can contain all manner of things, love letters for instance, or perhaps a get well soon card. sometimes they contain a ton of cash, anything really! lol. as for america. America is a country that has no universal healthcare provision and has an appalling education system. There political system is a joke and there political commentators are parallel to the joke.. The same system that the Tories are moving us to. But that's another topic for another thread.[/p][/quote]oh and for clarity and correct spelling issues. 'there' should have been 'their'[/p][/quote]BORING When did this go on to schooling I thought it was about the Echo uncovering some shenanigans involving a member of staff that was employed by SAPC. So Jayman do you agree with that this employee done?[/p][/quote]as I said above, the employee has been given the sack, I think this was the correct course of action.[/p][/quote]What about the bit that states, "Our reporters also discovered evidence of SACP tailgating customers’ vehicles bumper to bumper to sneak them through the airport’s car park barriers without paying" So ONE person was sacked but what about the other that must have known what was going on? Joe Wildman-Clark

4:20pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Joe Wildman-Clark says...

jolllyboy wrote:
I note that the airport is now charging for the drop off laybye. - why ? thats not encouraging, I expect they need money having spent a lot and need more to expand but thats mean.
You get 5-10mins free then pay £2.50, the chrage was started as cars were being left for 30+ mins, more than fair I would say.
[quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: I note that the airport is now charging for the drop off laybye. - why ? thats not encouraging, I expect they need money having spent a lot and need more to expand but thats mean.[/p][/quote]You get 5-10mins free then pay £2.50, the chrage was started as cars were being left for 30+ mins, more than fair I would say. Joe Wildman-Clark

6:38pm Thu 28 Feb 13

tophatdt says...

What I hate about these forums is when lazy people write one sentence underneath the previous dozen messages so that I have to scroll down more than the full length of my computer screen! That's boring....
What I hate about these forums is when lazy people write one sentence underneath the previous dozen messages so that I have to scroll down more than the full length of my computer screen! That's boring.... tophatdt

8:02pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Joe Wildman-Clark says...

tophatdt wrote:
What I hate about these forums is when lazy people write one sentence underneath the previous dozen messages so that I have to scroll down more than the full length of my computer screen! That's boring....
OK
[quote][p][bold]tophatdt[/bold] wrote: What I hate about these forums is when lazy people write one sentence underneath the previous dozen messages so that I have to scroll down more than the full length of my computer screen! That's boring....[/p][/quote]OK Joe Wildman-Clark

8:07pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Joe Wildman-Clark says...

tophatdt wrote:
What I hate about these forums is when lazy people write one sentence underneath the previous dozen messages so that I have to scroll down more than the full length of my computer screen! That's boring....
Seriously now:

Prehaps they are replying comment somebody has made the the replying comment only needed a few wordd.

Why go on for line after line when it can all be got ove rin one or two lines.

Replys that go on and not really getting to the point or going on with a reply that could have been made in one or two lines is far better.

As for the comment linking, if it was not used people would need to scroll back to find what the reply is replying too.

If this is now boring you than don't reply as it would have resulted in you having to scroll down to read this, but I guess you have scrolled down as you are reading this and getting bored reading a pointless comment...
[quote][p][bold]tophatdt[/bold] wrote: What I hate about these forums is when lazy people write one sentence underneath the previous dozen messages so that I have to scroll down more than the full length of my computer screen! That's boring....[/p][/quote]Seriously now: Prehaps they are replying comment somebody has made the the replying comment only needed a few wordd. Why go on for line after line when it can all be got ove rin one or two lines. Replys that go on and not really getting to the point or going on with a reply that could have been made in one or two lines is far better. As for the comment linking, if it was not used people would need to scroll back to find what the reply is replying too. If this is now boring you than don't reply as it would have resulted in you having to scroll down to read this, but I guess you have scrolled down as you are reading this and getting bored reading a pointless comment... Joe Wildman-Clark

8:55am Fri 1 Mar 13

Nebs says...

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
jolllyboy wrote:
I note that the airport is now charging for the drop off laybye. - why ? thats not encouraging, I expect they need money having spent a lot and need more to expand but thats mean.
You get 5-10mins free then pay £2.50, the chrage was started as cars were being left for 30+ mins, more than fair I would say.
Where do you get the free 10 minutes? Thanks.
[quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: I note that the airport is now charging for the drop off laybye. - why ? thats not encouraging, I expect they need money having spent a lot and need more to expand but thats mean.[/p][/quote]You get 5-10mins free then pay £2.50, the chrage was started as cars were being left for 30+ mins, more than fair I would say.[/p][/quote]Where do you get the free 10 minutes? Thanks. Nebs

5:21pm Fri 1 Mar 13

Letmetryagain says...

Noddy_99 wrote:
Do you know.....I just wish that those who comment within this forum took the time to proof read what they type before hitting 'send'

The standard of English is appalling, basic errors... to instead of too, there instead of their, rouge instead of rogue... the list is not exhaustive.

The same may be directed at the Echo itself..... errors abound daily!!.
Is there a question mark missing in the first sentence ?
[quote][p][bold]Noddy_99[/bold] wrote: Do you know.....I just wish that those who comment within this forum took the time to proof read what they type before hitting 'send' The standard of English is appalling, basic errors... to instead of too, there instead of their, rouge instead of rogue... the list is not exhaustive. The same may be directed at the Echo itself..... errors abound daily!!.[/p][/quote]Is there a question mark missing in the first sentence ? Letmetryagain

7:05pm Fri 1 Mar 13

Joe Wildman-Clark says...

Nebs wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
jolllyboy wrote:
I note that the airport is now charging for the drop off laybye. - why ? thats not encouraging, I expect they need money having spent a lot and need more to expand but thats mean.
You get 5-10mins free then pay £2.50, the chrage was started as cars were being left for 30+ mins, more than fair I would say.
Where do you get the free 10 minutes? Thanks.
The sweet spot....

I just use the normal drop off spot left the car 10mins and did not get charged, happened three times so far.
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: I note that the airport is now charging for the drop off laybye. - why ? thats not encouraging, I expect they need money having spent a lot and need more to expand but thats mean.[/p][/quote]You get 5-10mins free then pay £2.50, the chrage was started as cars were being left for 30+ mins, more than fair I would say.[/p][/quote]Where do you get the free 10 minutes? Thanks.[/p][/quote]The sweet spot.... I just use the normal drop off spot left the car 10mins and did not get charged, happened three times so far. Joe Wildman-Clark

7:06pm Fri 1 Mar 13

Joe Wildman-Clark says...

How ironic, advert at the bottom of the page for parking at Heathrow!
How ironic, advert at the bottom of the page for parking at Heathrow! Joe Wildman-Clark

8:39am Sat 2 Mar 13

Nebs says...

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
Nebs wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
jolllyboy wrote:
I note that the airport is now charging for the drop off laybye. - why ? thats not encouraging, I expect they need money having spent a lot and need more to expand but thats mean.
You get 5-10mins free then pay £2.50, the chrage was started as cars were being left for 30+ mins, more than fair I would say.
Where do you get the free 10 minutes? Thanks.
The sweet spot....

I just use the normal drop off spot left the car 10mins and did not get charged, happened three times so far.
I always thought the short stay car park was best, but that has been reduced to 5 minutes. Do you mean the lay-by, across the road from where the taxis plot up? Are you allowed to just park there and leave your car for 10 mins, if so thats great.
[quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: I note that the airport is now charging for the drop off laybye. - why ? thats not encouraging, I expect they need money having spent a lot and need more to expand but thats mean.[/p][/quote]You get 5-10mins free then pay £2.50, the chrage was started as cars were being left for 30+ mins, more than fair I would say.[/p][/quote]Where do you get the free 10 minutes? Thanks.[/p][/quote]The sweet spot.... I just use the normal drop off spot left the car 10mins and did not get charged, happened three times so far.[/p][/quote]I always thought the short stay car park was best, but that has been reduced to 5 minutes. Do you mean the lay-by, across the road from where the taxis plot up? Are you allowed to just park there and leave your car for 10 mins, if so thats great. Nebs

7:26pm Sun 3 Mar 13

Letmetryagain says...

Talking of annoying things, this website must be the worst for trying to dump cookies on your computer.

Although you have to allow one to be able to log in, you can block the other 16 or so.
Talking of annoying things, this website must be the worst for trying to dump cookies on your computer. Although you have to allow one to be able to log in, you can block the other 16 or so. Letmetryagain

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

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

I agree