Two questions: A) Has there been a precedent for instances of inconsistent, incorrect or the inappropriate application of variable speed limit policy on a Motorway providing a legal basis to challenge a speeding ticket? For example: 1) Motorway road works have road side speed limit signs stating 60 mph but overhead gantry displaying lower variable speed limit i.e. 30 mph without risk factor justification. The remotely controlled gantry signs do not correspond to conditions on the ground. 2) Motorway road works end and maybe end of road works signs are displayed each side of the road but subsequent overhead gantries incorrectly displaying variable speed limit of 60 mph without risk factor justification. The remotely controlled gantry signs do not correspond to conditions on the ground. 3) Motorway overhead gantries correctly displaying variable speed limit during time period of high traffic volume but erroneously left on during subsequent time period of low traffic volume without risk factor justification. The remotely controlled gantry signs do not correspond to conditions on the ground. 4) Motorway single overhead gantry displaying variable speed limit of 50 mph immediately followed by overhead gantry displaying national speed limit without risk factor justification prior during or after. The remotely controlled gantry signs do not correspond to conditions on the ground. 5) Motorway road works reducing four lanes to two lanes having no variable speed limit applied followed by road works with the same lack of risk factor justification but with overhead gantries displaying variable speed limit. The remotely controlled gantry signs are not consistently applied to the same ground conditions. B) How incorrect or contradictory does a variable speed limit need to be before drivers should rely on their better judgement of the surrounding context to determine their progress without fear of the current judicial process automatically presuming guilt with no requirement for errors by Highways England to be accepted in defence or mitigation?

Yesterday in the House of Commons, Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill entitled: Parking (Code of Practice) Bill received its 2nd reading. The support that he received was overwhelming (and thoroughly deserved) and the Bill now passes to the Committee stage. Rougue private parking operators have cause for concern. Yesterdays debate is worthy of reading: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debat...ailiff#g1160.0

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home

Some interesting b"**$71# from the directors of the IPC. https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/parking-review/news/47254/over-60-parking-operators-join-the-independent-parking-committee

Hey guys, Just wanted to know if this was possible? Have a dispute with the retailer, and the Ombudsman is delaying and delaying with giving its response - I've got to the point where I'm happy just to go to court. Thank you

Some travel companies seem to be using to force parents to pay a premium is by charging MORE for children than they do for adults. Website HolidayPirates have got some operators rumbled and have shown that some parents are being hoodwinked into paying premium by charging them MORE for children than they do for adults. In one case, they found that a holiday was being sold as £245 per person (including all extras for the school holidays), but the holiday is based on four adults sharing. However, if you swap two adults for two kids – for the same flights, same hotel, same everything – the price goes up to £344 each. Some tour operators will tinker with prices dependant on the child’s age. If you book one holiday for a family of four (two adults, one infant and one child aged 12) and one for exactly the same sized family but with the child being 13 (two adults, one infant, one child aged 13), you’ll see a big hike in the price of £133 each. http://www.holidaypirates.com/others/three-ways-tour-operators-are-ripping-off-families

The Financial Services Authority, is investigating claims by a whistleblower that Britain's £300bn wholesale gas market has been "regularly" manipulated by some of the big power companies, exploiting weaknesses that echo the recent Libor scandal. Separately, the energy regulator Ofgem has been warned by a company responsible for setting so-called benchmark prices, ICIS Heren, that it had seen evidence of suspect trading on 28 September, a key date as it marks the end of the gas financial year and can have an important influence on future prices. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/12/libor-like-manipulation-gas-markets

Here is an extract from an email from the DVLA about this company in response to this message:- From the DVLA (our red highlight):- Mind you, as we have seen from the Parking Eye judgment, BPA membership provides absolutely no protection