Thanks CAG, you are the best

[Guest jeremylongfinger]

Thanks to everyone at this site for such an accommodating and enlightening attitude towards PPCs. It's refreshing to be allowed to post in multiple silly names with as much mischevious and misleading comment as we like with no fear of sanction by the mods. We can advise people to pay up to our hearts content in the sure knowledge that the posting will be allowed and even encouraged. All that happens is that the same people label us trolls but their censorship is clearly not shared by the mods.

 

Thanks also for banning some of our opponents who dared to challenge us. All in all a great site, unlike Pepipoo where we are banned after about 5 minutes.

[Mossycat]

It's refreshing to be allowed to post in multiple silly names with as much mischevious and misleading comment as we like with no fear of sanction by the mods.

 

Wow a PPC who speaks the truth.

 

Post all the misleading comments you want, there are plenty of members who will post correct and true advice to victims of your scams

 

Mossycat

[BeauBrummie]

And Jeremylongfinger you reap what you sow ------ be carefull !!!!

[Bookworm]

*Yawn*

[tomterm8]

Hm... why would you need more than one user ID in CAG? the number of times someone has been permanently banned on the parking forums is countable on the number of hands in one finger.

[Bookworm]

... Unless it is someone who would have been moderated for their poor manners, unacceptable insults to other users, been asked to restrain themselves over and over again and failed to do so and therefore action would have to be taken against them, Tom, and instead of getting the hint and controlling their excesses, they would then abandon the previous IDs and choose to start under a different guise.

 

Terribly sad, don't you think? All they have to do is stop hurling insults at one another and put their legal arguments in a logical and reasonable manner (which I think you'll agree would carry so much more weight to the argument) and they could debate to their heart's contents. Instead, they seem to think that insulting the other side is somehow going to convince anyone reading their posts they must be in the right.

 

A sad state of affairs, I tell you. ;-)

[ThisIsRacket]

@ jeremylongfinger. I, for once, fail to see the point of banning you. As they say - keep your friends close, but enimies... . Once you start telling people that they need to pay up, it becomes clear to them that you are a [problem]... sorry troll, and don't listen any more. Besides, If your business is so within a law, why do you feel like hanging around these pages. I don't see cops moonlighting at Pepipoo telling people they cannot escape NIPs. So, mate, you an idiot, who has just proven that you HAVE to bully and lie in order to extract money and This Is called Racket.

[Mossycat]

We are more than prepared to argue the case on its merits.

 

Yes but you hardly ever try and argue your case in Court, and on the very few times that you do you lose.

 

Mossycat

[Bookworm]

Dear ThisIsRacket, you have obviously missed the heavy-handed sarcasm handed out by OP. It was quite clear (to me, at least ;-))from his first post that he is one of the many "legal" people who has been put on moderation, not, despite what their buckets of chip on shoulder would make them think, because their advice is incorrect or wrong, but because they were incapable to express it without loading it with venom towards the other side. After they were asked many, many times to keep it civil, there was little option but for mods to do it for them.

 

Now OP is pretending to be one of the PPCs thanking CAG for its support, when it is in fact anything but, and when the PPCs also resorted to mud-flinging, they were also put on moderation, and guess what? They ALSO complained of unfairness, censorship and one-sidedness by the mods!

 

In my book, if both sides complain they have been treated unfairly, that means they have both been treated evenly. They might not like it, but that's another story. ;-)

 

I happen to think that we stand more to learn by hearing the other side and being able to refute their arguments in an intelligent manner and learning their weaknesses that way than by having a bunch of nodding dogs all agreeing with one another. And this forum always has had a history of hearing out the other side, whether they be bank workers, debt collectors, bailiffs or PPC employees, as long as people remain civil. I see no reason for this to change, and if the yes-men don't like it, they can go and stay elsewhere where they can agree with one another and congratulate one another on how right they are until the cows come home.

[Bookworm]

*Yawn*.

 

Again.

 

[ThisIsRacket]

Argue in the court. You know you cannot. BTW, you are one and the same as Bernard Skintlebinger and Julian Fiddlepot? Otherwise seems like an invasion of people using the same naming conventions. I hope it pays well to go on a triple.

[Barnsley Boy]

*Yawn*.

 

Again.

 

 

Bookworm,

 

If Jeremy Longfinger is using the same IP and / or email] as a previously moderated member why can't you simply tell us who it is?

[ThisIsRacket]

Well, like others said it here before: names, dates, court cases - this little niggly bit called supporting evidence for your statements. On the other hand, I have seem few private parking sites with hidden signs as the intention is to extort money NOT to inform the motorist. Not to mention the whole other inconsistent stuff. Until we see here posts from people who have lost their cases in droves (with dates and case numbers; in case you are willing to fabricate), there is no basis in your statements. As I have said, if you feel so strong about your position, what the flop are you doing here, just sit back and wait for the court judgements in your favour to roll in.

[Bookworm]

Bookworm,

 

If Jeremy Longfinger is using the same IP and / or email] as a previously moderated member why can't you simply tell us who it is?

I don't think I have said anything of the kind.

 

What I have said was that it was obvious to me that this was not really a PPC posting. Think about it. ;-)

[Guest jasonstickstirrer]

A bit late to be clamping down now when we've enjoyed complete freedom to post all week. Or is it that the regulars here are unable to debate the intricacies of private parking law?

[ThisIsRacket]

jasonstickstirrer, get a life, [edited] . Don't you have like family, boy/girl-friend... PlayStation??? Or is it that the only place where people talk to you is here?

[Guest jasonstickstirrer]

Actually it is "loser". And I have a life and a well paid job as a private parking operative. I'm proud of it. Why cannot you debate properly rather than hurling insults? I was given to believe those hurling insults would be banned but I might have misread that.

[ThisIsRacket]

"And I have a life and a well paid job as a private parking operative. I'm proud of it." KPMG has a staff policy to have photos of the best performing staff in their co. publication. Wonder if you'd post yours, how long would you last in your 'hood??!!?? I am done here.

[Guest jasonstickstirrer]

ThisIsrRacket, you appear to have an anger management problem. Our business is totally legitimate. We employ many people to administer the tickets. We play by the rules. If private parking is such a [problem], why hasn't the government done anything about it? My view is that this is because it is a necessary service and is properly regulated as is.

[ThisIsRacket]

M0I20N, (just before I leave) this government also supported US Iraqi war - an act deemed illegal by international lawers. Good bye.

[Guest jasonstickstirrer]

ThisIsRacket calm down. I was not involved in starting the Iraqi war. I merely wish to put the argument for PPCs, which I am told is welcome but I am beginning to think is not, given the attacks made on me. Can we not debate like adults instead of calling each other names and threatening physical violence?

[ThisIsRacket]

Bookworm, it is your decision. However, here is Wikipedia's definition (others may want to look it up in their Oxford dictionaries): "Moron was originally an English scientific term, coined in 1910 by psychologist Henry H. Goddard from the Greek word moros, which meant "dull" (as opposed to "sharp"), and used to describe a person with a mental age located between eight and 12 on the Binet scale. It was once applied to people with an IQ of 51-70, being superior in one degree to "imbecile" (IQ of 26-50) and superior in two degrees to "idiot" (IQ of 0-25). The word moron, along with others including "retarded", "idiotic", "imbecilic", "stupid", and "feeble-minded", was formerly considered a valid descriptor in the psychological community, though these words have all now passed into common slang use, exclusively in a derogatory context." - So, no offence, just a statement of obvious.

[ThisIsRacket]

@ jasonstickstirrer. No, you were not involved in starting the Iraqi war. But your statement: "If private parking is such a [problem], why hasn't the government done anything about it?" is invalid on the basis that, IF the government is not doing something about something illegitimate, THEN it does make it legal. See - LOGIC. This post is for the benefit of newcomers, so they don't listen to yours and your other Log-In ID's cr4p.

[pin1onu]

Our business is totally legitimate. We employ many people to administer the tickets. We play by the rules.

Ah sorry no. This is total male cow excrement. A good many PPC's breach statute law and case law with the way they are run. The Administration of Justice Act Section 40 springs immediately to mind. Not mention Penalty Charges and the Dunlop case under case law.

 

If private parking is such a [problem], why hasn't the government done anything about it? My view is that this is because it is a necessary service and is properly regulated as is.

They eventually moved on clamping by attempting to remove the criminals - witness the misguided PSI Act. I suspect that the PPC [problem] will be up for review by the Government before to long. Media attention is being drawn to the current scams thanks to the likes of Neil Herron, CAG, Pepipoo and BBC Watchdog.

 

The secret is out. I would like to think that as the [problem] becomes more widely known that more and more people will refuse to pay. High profile cases like the Excel case in Mansfield have also shown up this fallacy that the PPCs are acting within the law.

 

It maybe that the service is necessary but I believe that the current way that the PPCs enforce and implement it are illegal and immoral. They use cheap threats, pass themselves off as official and rely on peoples ignorance.

 

There has to be a more effective and legal way to enforce and control parking on private land. The current methods just don't cut the mustard.

[WebFerret]

Our business is totally legitimate.

 

An interesting statement you have made! - I assume you refer to Private Parking Companies reliant on the law of contract in the persuit of monies?

 

On balance of the posts on this site - I doubt it very much.

 

How come so many people on this forum state legal verse that simply prove the opposite to which you claim, with descriptive words of summary such as, "[problem], racket, crooks, extortion" ect.

 

In my humble view, to send someone an invoice for an alledged breach of contract without first confirming with whom legally the contract is deemed to exist under English law (ie simply sending to RK and not the driver) is simply wrong AND the first 'offence' to your untrue statement........ I could go on but it is covered more than adiquatly in numerous posts scatters within this site!

 

Good day to you Sir! - (no offence meant if you are female)