Ticket collector whines
Re: Ticket collector whines
I never claimed that she moved her car. Try reading the whole post Andrew and you might see where I am coming from...
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
Re: Ticket collector whines
It emerged yesterday that council leaders have agreed to let her pay it off at the rate of just £5 a week.
That means it will be 42 years and four months by the time unemployed Miss Williams has cleared the backlog of her parking fines, when she will be well into her 60s.
She said: “I know I’ve been a bit silly but I just let the parking tickets spiral out of control.
“I was only getting £40 a week unemployment benefit and the tickets were being increased from £30 to £75 because I wasn’t paying them.
“It’s going to take me forever to pay off the fine but I have no choice.
“I might be an old lady by the time I’ve paid them off.
“It seems a bit harsh – all I was doing was parking outside the house where I was living.
Read More http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... z17UpUlmEW
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Ticket collector whines
I did read your entire posting, Sean, more than once. Nothing in it shows that she parked her car in violation of the permit-parking regime -- which has not been shown to serve any purpose other than a local government's money-grubbing -- more than once.
As far as we know, she parked her car in violation of the government's extortion regime only once. That means that 159 of the 160 citations are intrinsically invalid.
As far as we know, she parked her car in violation of the government's extortion regime only once. That means that 159 of the 160 citations are intrinsically invalid.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Ticket collector whines
The woman really hasn't got a clue. She obviously thinks that silly things like the law shouldn't apply to her.
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
Re: Ticket collector whines
Not true Andrew, she parked her car there, and for each time it was seen to be in vilolation of te eparking restrictions, she was lawfully given a ticket.Andrew D wrote:As far as we know, she parked her car in violation of the government's extortion regime only once. That means that 159 of the 160 citations are intrinsically invalid.
Since October 2008 she has been issued with 160 fixed penalty notices, including five in five days earlier this month, totalling £9,600.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Ticket collector whines
Five pounds a week more than she actually owes.Gob wrote:It emerged yesterday that council leaders have agreed to let her pay it off at the rate of just £5 a week.
The only salient fact:
Oh, except for this:"... all I was doing was parking outside the house where I was living."
That pretty well sums it up. The whole thing has nothing to do with whether she ought to have to pay the citations. It is entirely about whether the government can force her to pay the citations. It can.“... I have no choice."
But she can still fight back. And she should.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Ticket collector whines
She hasn't a leg to stand on.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Ticket collector whines
Ah. So each time that she was "seen" to have committed an offense, she was lawfully cited for having committed that offense.Gob wrote:Not true Andrew, she parked her car there, and for each time it was seen to be in vilolation of te eparking restrictions, she was lawfully given a ticket.
The number of times she actually committed that offense is irrelevant to the number of times she was cited for committing that offense.
So if you kidnap me and hold me for six hours, you are guilty of kidnapping me six times.
Oh, wait. You held me for 360 minutes. Therefore, you are guilty of 360 counts of kidnapping.
Oh, wait. You held me for 21,600 seconds. Therefore, you are guilty of 21,600 counts of kidnapping.
Get serious. The woman parked (as far as we know) once in violation of the (unjustifiable) permit-parking regime. Thus, she violated the permit-parking ordinance once.
If you have evidence that she committed the alleged offense more than once, produce it.
I won't be holding my breath.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Ticket collector whines
I think our parking laws may be different to yours if you think that Andrew.
A parking fine is issued each time a parking inspector or police officer notes a car parked illegally (ie without a residents permit)
A parking fine is issued each time a parking inspector or police officer notes a car parked illegally (ie without a residents permit)
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Ticket collector whines
So if I park for one hour in a space where I am not permitted to park, and one or another parking inspector comes by every five minutes, I can be cited twelve times for parking once in that space for one hour?
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Ticket collector whines
Possibley, yes.
In this case it sounds like they have a daily inspection (as she had them on five consecutive days).
In this case it sounds like they have a daily inspection (as she had them on five consecutive days).
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Ticket collector whines
So the number of times which I have violated the permit-parking law is irrelevant.
If I park somewhere once, and I am cited for doing so once, then I am issued one citation.
If I park somewhere once, and I am cited for doing so five times, then I am issued five citations.
If I park somewhere once, and I am cited for doing so a thousand times, then I am issued a thousand citations.
The number of citations I get is not based on the number of offenses that I have committed; it is based on the whim of the government: If the government pleases to send enforcement personnel to where I am parking once a day, then I get a citation once a day; if the government pleases to send enforcement personnel to where I am parking twice a day, then I get two citations every day; if the government pleases to send enforcement personnel to where I am parking once an hour, then I get twenty-four citations every day; and so on.
Is that really how things ought to be? Should the number of citations issued to someone for having done something be unrelated to how may times that person has (allegedly) done that thing?
I think not.
If I park somewhere once, and I am cited for doing so once, then I am issued one citation.
If I park somewhere once, and I am cited for doing so five times, then I am issued five citations.
If I park somewhere once, and I am cited for doing so a thousand times, then I am issued a thousand citations.
The number of citations I get is not based on the number of offenses that I have committed; it is based on the whim of the government: If the government pleases to send enforcement personnel to where I am parking once a day, then I get a citation once a day; if the government pleases to send enforcement personnel to where I am parking twice a day, then I get two citations every day; if the government pleases to send enforcement personnel to where I am parking once an hour, then I get twenty-four citations every day; and so on.
Is that really how things ought to be? Should the number of citations issued to someone for having done something be unrelated to how may times that person has (allegedly) done that thing?
I think not.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Ticket collector whines
It's not a "whim" of the government Anrew, it's a long standing and well understood law.
Is it right? I believe so, it punishes repeat offending.
Is it right? I believe so, it punishes repeat offending.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Ticket collector whines
What is the "long standing and well understood law"?
That if you park without the required permit you can be cited three times? Ten times? A hundred times? A thousand times? What?
The bottom line remains that if you park your car once where you are not allowed to park it, then you have committed the offense one time, and you are liable for one citation.
A second citation for an offense that one has committed only once is a crime against justice. A third citation for an offense that one has committed only once is a recidivist crime against justice.
Anyone who is the victim of such a crime has a perfect right to defend her- or himself against it.
That if you park without the required permit you can be cited three times? Ten times? A hundred times? A thousand times? What?
The bottom line remains that if you park your car once where you are not allowed to park it, then you have committed the offense one time, and you are liable for one citation.
A second citation for an offense that one has committed only once is a crime against justice. A third citation for an offense that one has committed only once is a recidivist crime against justice.
Anyone who is the victim of such a crime has a perfect right to defend her- or himself against it.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Ticket collector whines
Well, that's what you may think, however in the UK it is underrstod that the offense does not end once a ticket is issued. If the car is still in the same spot the next day, another ticket is issued. The day after, another ticket.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Ticket collector whines
Some years ago, some law students at my alma mater successfully got thousands of parking citations issued by the City of Berkeley thrown out on exactly that basis: If you park your car in a space for twelve hours, you have committed the offense of parking for more than two hours exactly once.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Ticket collector whines
But this woman parked on the street for so long, that your analogy is not relevant.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Ticket collector whines
At what point does it become irrelevant? Her second citation? Her third? Her tenth? Her fiftieth?
And if you can commit multiple offenses by the act of parking your car once, why is the vehicle ticketed only once per day? Why not once in the morning and once in the evening? Why not once every six hours? Why not once every two hours?
Is the ordinance at issue written to provide that merely leaving a car where it is already parked constitutes an unending train of offenses? Berkeley's was not, which is why the citations were thrown out. Berkeley subsequently changed its ordinance, but parking meters now clearly warn that multiple citations will be issued. Do the signs (or whatever) posted in the zone where this person parked clearly warn that multiple citations will be issued?
And if you can commit multiple offenses by the act of parking your car once, why is the vehicle ticketed only once per day? Why not once in the morning and once in the evening? Why not once every six hours? Why not once every two hours?
Is the ordinance at issue written to provide that merely leaving a car where it is already parked constitutes an unending train of offenses? Berkeley's was not, which is why the citations were thrown out. Berkeley subsequently changed its ordinance, but parking meters now clearly warn that multiple citations will be issued. Do the signs (or whatever) posted in the zone where this person parked clearly warn that multiple citations will be issued?
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Ticket collector whines
I have found information that states one ticket per day (one per 24 hrs) is the maximum, but that is not definite.
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... me-Offence!!!
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... me-Offence!!!
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Ticket collector whines
There are a lot of safety and environmental laws which allow penalties to be increased for each day that a violation continues whether or not there was only 1 action resulting in the violation or not.Andrew D wrote:What is the "long standing and well understood law"?
That if you park without the required permit you can be cited three times? Ten times? A hundred times? A thousand times? What?
The bottom line remains that if you park your car once where you are not allowed to park it, then you have committed the offense one time, and you are liable for one citation.
A second citation for an offense that one has committed only once is a crime against justice. A third citation for an offense that one has committed only once is a recidivist crime against justice.
Anyone who is the victim of such a crime has a perfect right to defend her- or himself against it.
If the goal is to change public behavior then it is reasonable to have a policy whose effectiveness is more rapid and is scaled to meet the impact of the socially undesired behavior. It would improve the granularity of the response to issue tickets (for smaller fines) at intervals rather than increase the amount of the fine. If the law is written so that 'each' two-hour interval is an additional offense (which is not unreasonable since she has deprived someone of the legal use of that space for each interval) then I see no problem with giving multiple tickets/day.
yrs,
rubato