Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

[letissier14]

Where the fuck do they get the idea that it's a legal requirement to produce a public liability insurance certificate? As far as I know there isn't even a legal requirement to have public liability insurance let alone produce proof of cover to every passing lunatic.

Public liability insurance isn’t compulsory. The only compulsory cover is employers’ liability insurance, which is a legal requirement for most businesses that employ staff.

[SteveUK]

Not strictly FmOTl, but it does has a whiff of it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-t ... l-39478203

[notorial dissent]

Would they even need liability insurance if they are acting in a public capacity? This just sounds like more footl legal brilliance.

[GaryBale]

Is this where the "3 letters" idea comes from;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-t ... l-39478203

Parking company creates "a contract" by putting up notices of charges outside somebody's home. Motorist parks there but doesn't agree to the charges and refuses to pay for a parking spot. Court finds in favour of the parking company, even though there is mention of any loss. These are not "fines" like police etc issue, but fees for a "service" according to the article.

[notorial dissent]

I think there is more to it than that, she was parking on private property, not her own, and the owner had a right to a parking fee, which she wasn't paying. As to the rest, not sure it makes sense. The only contract though was between the parking company and the landlord.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I think there is more to it than that, she was parking on private property, not her own, and the owner had a right to a parking fee, which she wasn't paying. As to the rest, not sure it makes sense. The only contract though was between the parking company and the landlord.

The laws and decisions on parking on private land are very convoluted and frankly bizarre as to how we have arrived at the current state of the law. I would also suspect they are not the same in Scotland as they are in England too.

[rumpelstilzchen]

The only contract though was between the parking company and the landlord.

I don't know about Scotland but in England and Wales the motorist is deemed to have entered into a contract if there is adequate signage in a private car park.

[Footloose52]

Is this where the "3 letters" idea comes from;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-t ... l-39478203

Parking company creates "a contract" by putting up notices of charges outside somebody's home. Motorist parks there but doesn't agree to the charges and refuses to pay for a parking spot. Court finds in favour of the parking company, even though there is mention of any loss. These are not "fines" like police etc issue, but fees for a "service" according to the article.

Analysed more fully here - http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?sho ... 112848&hl=

[Forsyth]

Is this where the "3 letters" idea comes from;

It may well have had some influence on their beliefs. With a parking agreement you're presented with the terms on a sign in the car park and your acceptance of the terms is by your actions in choosing to park there - you have a choice and you actively choose to park there.

Because parking isn't something that people think much about, it may appear to some that this is a tacit agreement - they did nothing (nothing special, that is) but they have been bound by the agreement posted anyway. The fact is that they did take an action which bound them to the agreement, so, regardless of what it may feel to them like, it is not a tacit agreement.

It's interesting that many people who believe in the validity of tacit agreements manage to disbelieve in the ability of parking terms and conditions to be binding. Generally they prefer to quote VCS Parking Control vs. Ibbotson (found against the parking company because they'd made a mistake in forming their agreement with the land owner so had no right to take action) and not ParkingEye vs. Beavis, where the court found that, so long as they dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's, then the agreement is binding and can be enforced.

In particular, Eye vs. Beavis found that they could charge what was effectively a small fine and were not limited to quantifying the cost of losing a parking space for a particular time (which would have prevented them from charging for anything more than wear and tear on the asphalt if there were any other free spaces in the car park). Eye vs. Beavis required some particularly squirrelly thinking from the judges, as this was not considered to be acceptable before.

[exiledscouser]

The Daily Snail also has a bit more on this story.

Quoting from the article;

The Dundee case is thought to be the first in Scotland involving a private parking firm and a member of the public – and lawyers say it could open the floodgates in a sector that is notoriously poorly regulated.
Already one parking company, ParkingEye, is quoting the case on its website as proof that penalties are enforceable in Scotland.

The received wisdom within Footle circles appears to be that non police parking tickets aren't enforceable north of the Wall but if this case stands then it's bad news for errant 'Mc' parkers.

One of M'learned friends comments

Lawyer Chris Buchanan of Glasgow firm Scullion LAW said the Dundee Sheriff Court hearing was a landmark case that set a legal precedent. He added: ‘The worry here overall is does this open a floodgate? Do [parking companies] then rely on this precedent to take more to court?

‘There will obviously be distinguishable points within that case and each case will no doubt have to be assessed on its individual merits but, yes, it could have a big impact for people going forward and it is certainly something for people to have to watch out for.’

Personally I dislike the burgeoning private car fining sector, it's difficult enough to find somewhere to park these days, somewhere free from some busybody on a revenue collection mission at my expense. That said, by ripping up (says the article) over 200 tickets, all issued to the same car and at the same location over many months the (delightful it must be said) Ms Mackie set herself for a head-on collision with this company (Vehicle Control Services). They had to test the waters or the whole industry in Scotland would have effectively been put out of business if their fines were found to be unenforceable.

It doesn't say whether she deployed FMOTL or similar arguments (not that they would have been any more effective) but I'll bet the likes of VCS and Parking Eye will be popping the champers tonight.

[aesmith]

The laws and decisions on parking on private land are very convoluted and frankly bizarre as to how we have arrived at the current state of the law. I would also suspect they are not the same in Scotland as they are in England too.

Specifically the strangely named Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 doesn't apply in Scotland. It's this act which allows unpaid parking charges to be claimed from the vehicles "keeper" (normally assumed to be the registered keeper, but "keeper" is all that the act says). So in Scotland any action can only be against person who was driving at the time the vehicle was parked, and there's no obligation for the keeper to name the driver.

[aesmith]

In particular, Eye vs. Beavis found that they could charge what was effectively a small fine and were not limited to quantifying the cost of losing a parking space for a particular time (which would have prevented them from charging for anything more than wear and tear on the asphalt if there were any other free spaces in the car park). Eye vs. Beavis required some particularly squirrelly thinking from the judges, as this was not considered to be acceptable before.

Indeed, Beavis killed off one of the standard defences which was that the penalty was not a true reflection of actual loss arising from the parking. Prior to this case the parking companies used to claim their penalty was for trespass, or breach of contract (both of which imply compensation for actual loss), or as an agreed term (are they really saying it's OK to abuse the disabled spaces so long as you pay £100?). Now they can just come out with it and call it a penalty.

[JimUk1]

https://m.facebook.com/unityinthecommunitylove/

A freeman on the land blogger now, good grief!

[ArthurWankspittle]

https://m.facebook.com/unityinthecommunitylove/

A freeman on the land blogger now, good grief!

I think we have come across Claire Kennedy before. I also have to wonder what she has done that apparently the Police have taken her dog.

[exiledscouser]

https://m.facebook.com/unityinthecommunitylove/

A freeman on the land blogger now, good grief!

That is one seriously disturbed young woman. She seems to be a fellow traveller with Chrisy Morris and Dave Witcher and has seemingly absorbed their mindset. I may be wrong but I think she is becoming too reliant on cannabis -the strong stuff - which is damaging her mental health.

She'll post something and then be the majority if not sole commentator, having a conversation with herself.

Looks too that she has recently come to the attention of plod and did not enjoy the experience.

Another car-crash individual who needs proper and professional medical assistance.

[letissier14]

The delightful Claire

https://www.facebook.com/EnglishRuleOfL ... 425281051/

[JimUk1]

Wow.

She seriously needs to reduce her cannabis intake imo.

Is there a connection between heavy users of that drug and freemen? Just seems to me there maybe?

[longdog]

Wow.

She seriously needs to reduce her cannabis intake imo.

Is there a connection between heavy users of that drug and freemen? Just seems to me there maybe?

A disproportionate number of stoners seem to be conspiracy theorists and footlerism is really nothing more than a conspiracy theory. On that basis I think it's fair to conclude there is a link but which is cause and which is effect is debatable I suppose.

I'm all for legalisation of drugs and have taken my share in the past but moderation in all things and all that.

[littleFred]

I thought that cannabis made you laid-back? That's how it used to be. Not that I ever, of course, ...

Focus, girl, focus! If you want your dog(s) back, make that phone call. If you want the police to go after 500,000 paedophiles, that's a totally different call. Mixing the two gets you filed under "nutjob", and you achieve nothing.

[JimUk1]

Wow.

She seriously needs to reduce her cannabis intake imo.

Is there a connection between heavy users of that drug and freemen? Just seems to me there maybe?

A disproportionate number of stoners seem to be conspiracy theorists and footlerism is really nothing more than a conspiracy theory. On that basis I think it's fair to conclude there is a link but which is cause and which is effect is debatable I suppose.

I'm all for legalisation of drugs and have taken my share in the past but moderation in all things and all that.

Absolutely. I lived in Amsterdam for a while but never overstep the mark, I'd rather live in reality than an alternative one.

I suppose since a high proportion of stoners are anti-government, I suppose the natural progression is to become a "freeman/sov cit".