We have parking problem in our road every few weeks when there's a tournament round at the local rugby club.
Pavements obstructed, people's grass parked on, so tight on the corner that a car struggles to get around. No way is a fire engine or a breakdown flatbed getting down here.
Neighbour with an eff off massive pick up can't get through at all.
Went out with my phone and took pictures. Man in van got very a***y indeed about his vehicle being in the pictures. Apparently it's against the law to take pictures of people's vans!!
At one stage he was poking his finger in my shoulder while e***** and jeffing at me to delete it. Thought at one stage he was going to thump me or make a grab for the phone which was in my pocket.
Waiting for 101 to pick up my call.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 21 Apr 24 at 11:26
|
Rather than direct confrontation/photographs, why not start a campaign with neighbours to plague the police and fire brigade about emergency vehicle access. Obstructing the highway is an offence!
They may find it easier to send someone round to either issue a few tickets, tow offending vehicles away, or put up signs. Their alternative is a stream of annoyed phone calls every few weeks which they will need to deal with.
Make the Rugby club and local press aware - they may have some influence (or may be rugby supporters)
|
I wasn't confrontational he was. I didn't see that there was anybody in the van until he started shouting.
The photographs are to show the level of obstruction to the rugby club and the Council.
Just been out in the Berlingo. I can just get round the left turn into the road. The caravan would trail in too tightly. No way a fire appliance or anything bigger than an ordinary car would get down there.
Car on the corner, four square on the pavement, is a wheelchair adapted VW Caddy.
101 are calling me back.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 21 Apr 24 at 11:45
|
The apartment where we stay in Portugal is in a very short and narrow cul de sac, which is off a very narrow street, and at the start of which are the communal waste bins, separate for glass, cardboard etc like wot we do. Here it is on Maps, but it's out of date - shorturl.at/gvNYZ - as the layby (supposedly disabled) has gone and there is now a fat solid yellow line on the left and the posts are actually in the road rather than on the pavement.
The bin lorries are like ours except they have a hoist on the back which pulls the receptacle out of the ground to empty it into the lorry. Like this shorturl.at/ILSZ5 except our containers are effectively huge bags underground, beneath the bit on the pavement you can see. They have to reverse into the road, and go out again to the right as the left leads to the pedestrianised sea front. If you spin the map round you can imagine how difficult it must be to manoeuvre a large lorry around those streets.
Anyway, parking in general is pretty haphazard to say the least, but people are always parked on the yellow lines. The result is the bin lorries can't get in to empty the bins unless they are lucky or the driver is feeling brave.
We asked why the parking restriction doesn't seem to be enforced. 1) They have nothing like traffic wardens in the town and 2) the police come along and take pics of the parked cars from time to time but it's not known whether there is any follow up, and that is no visible deterrent to others (i.e. unlike seeing a ticket slapped on the screen). There is also no signage saying no parking or explaining why. The one bin lorry I saw up there during my 7 weeks was accompanied by the police who took more pics.
As I said their parking in general is pretty dire but this particular one becomes something of a public health hazard which the illegal parkers seem to not notice or care about. If I lived there I would be doing something about it, like you are Bromps. It's the same the world over I guess.
Last edited by: smokie on Sun 21 Apr 24 at 12:38
|
|
I don't know how true this is, but a retired fireman told me that they are allowed to scrape the sides of obstructing vehicles on the way to an emergency.
|
>> I don't know how true this is, but a retired fireman told me that they
>> are allowed to scrape the sides of obstructing vehicles on the way to an emergency.
Former neighbour who was in the fire service said the same. That or several burly firefighters would bounce them out of the way.
|
Northants police called me back in response to my leaving a message on 101.
Took it quite seriously and are arranging for a Police Officer to call me later in the week.
|
|
Perhaps 'van-man' was worried you'd check his tax, MOT and insurance online (you do know how?).
|
>> Northants police called me back in response to my leaving a message on 101.
>>
>> Took it quite seriously and are arranging for a Police Officer to call me later
>> in the week.
They would, an offence has been committed, you didnt video the palava as well did you?
|
>> They would, an offence has been committed, you didnt video the palava as well did
>> you?
No. I was focused on keeping a totally calm demeanour. Whipping my phone out would have unnecessarily raised the stakes and invited chummy to make a grab for it.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 21 Apr 24 at 17:25
|
>Took it quite seriously...
You told 'em he was 'openly Jewish'?!
|
>> You told 'em he was 'openly Jewish'?!
Ha Ha. If the copper had said evidently instead of openly would we have had the same complaint.
Seriously though I don't think Gideon Falter is as innocent as he'd have us believe. If you go through the whole thing he was almost certainly out to provoke or to 'prove a point'. He challenged the copper to arrest him.
|
>> Seriously though I don't think Gideon Falter is as innocent as he'd have us believe.
>> If you go through the whole thing he was almost certainly out to provoke or
>> to 'prove a point'. He challenged the copper to arrest him.
>>
It was a clearly planned to embarrass the Met and they totally rose to the bait.
It does seem that a large crowd, acting illegally, have more rights than someone wanting to go about their business though and that the point he wanted to make.
I wonder if he will be suing the Met? He was told twice that he was detained - for what policing need? He wasn't searched, he wasn't breaching the peace. That's not allowed.
|
"......for what policing need? He wasn't searched, he wasn't breaching the peace. That's not allowed."
To prevent a Breach of the Peace. All indications were that his intention was to cross the road into the path of the Pro Palestinians.
|
>> To prevent a Breach of the Peace. All indications were that his intention was to
>> cross the road into the path of the Pro Palestinians.
The Police Officer's opening words are to speak to him about walking through the demo wile moving in the opposite direction to it. IME in many years in London if you want to walk through a demo and cannot do it in a straight line then you walk with them and move across, doubling back if necessary.
|
>>Breach of the peace...
The point being made that was that he was going about his legal rights. It would have been the others that would potentially have breached the peace.
|
|
Maybe but deliberately provoking the protestors doesn't seem reasonable to me.
|
"The point being made that was that he was going about his legal rights. It would have been the others that would potentially have breached the peace."
In a Utopian world he was but common sense dictates we have to deal with the real world like it or not.
No different to a football match and keeping the fans apart or recommending that there are certain inner city areas, unfortunately, that it may be best to stay clear of at certain times.
He went out of his way, along with a SKY camera, purely to become a victim and he succeeded.
PACE 24 also gives a power to detain someone for their own safety if there is a likelihood of them sustaining injury.
|
>>
>> PACE 24 also gives a power to detain someone for their own safety if there
>> is a likelihood of them sustaining injury.
>>
I thought S24 para 5 related to the arrest being necessary to prevent self harm only if they were suspected of or had committed an offence covered by paras 1, 2 or 3?
Which I don't think counts here?
|
>> I thought S24 para 5 related to the arrest being necessary to prevent self harm
>> only if they were suspected of or had committed an offence covered by paras 1,
>> 2 or 3?
So far as I can see para 5 sets out conditions that must be met in order to exercise the power in Paras 1-3. Two of those conditions relate to causing or suffering physical injury.
I think the officer had already concluded that an offence covered by Para 1, probably either (a) or (c) - Falter was about to commit an offence or the officer had reason to suspect he might. Breach of the Peace, or facilitating/causing one seems to be a possibility.
If Gideon Falter thinks he was trespassed against he can issue proceedings.
If I understood correctly he's asked his supporters to come along to the next Demo (Sunday?) and join him in, effectively, trying the same stunt again.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 22 Apr 24 at 13:35
|
He presumably thought he was making an important point but all anybody will see is that he was deliberately acting provocatively.
The police get my sympathy on this one. The "you are openly Jewish" thing can be deemed unacceptable but I think you have to let it go - it's not a surprise if a police officer in a stressful situation doesn't pick the right words immediately and it would be a mistake to infer anything about the individual or the Met from it.
If that sounds as if I'm calling Mr Falter a berk, well on that occasion he was. I doubt if he was in any actual danger or that there there would in fact have been a breach of the peace, but if he had succeeded with his provocation and got biffed (or arrested) he would have had some of the blame for failing sensibly to mitigate risk to himself.
Absolutely people should have the right to demonstrate but the police have enough on without people acting like that.
|
>> The police get my sympathy on this one. The "you are openly Jewish" thing can
>> be deemed unacceptable but I think you have to let it go - it's not
>> a surprise if a police officer in a stressful situation doesn't pick the right words
>> immediately and it would be a mistake to infer anything about the individual or the
>> Met from it.
>>
I am not convinced. Would the same officer have said - "you are openly Muslim" in the opposite situation - I don't think so.
|
>>I am not convinced. Would the same officer have said - "you are openly Muslim"
>> in the opposite situation - I don't think so.
I guess the scenario would be a pro-Israeli demo with participants said to be overtly in favour of everything happening in Israeli occupied Palestine (ie it's post 67/UN242 border). Man in Muslim garb and wearing symbols of Arab nationalism/Islam turns up and tries to walk against the march.
I think he'd be nicked pdq, probably a lot faster than Gideon was, or rather was not.
The word openly was clearly poorly chosen, a better one would have been evidently, but of that's what the fuss is about I worry for our nation's future.
|
That's my interpretation.
BoP is the substantive offence and 5(c)ii is the Necessity Test.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Mon 22 Apr 24 at 13:58
|
That depends on it being a real BoP.
I can't imagine it getting far, if he had a shopping list and wanted to get to the Kosher supermarket, then how is that ever going to be BoP without looking racist or biased in some sense.
The real people causing the problem are the protesters who would likely have attacked the man.
I know he very likely went out to prove a point and it's an impossible situation for plod on the ground but it really does look like victim blaming.
I expect plod to do something like Del did: www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyXou1RxQPc
:-D
Last edited by: zippy on Mon 22 Apr 24 at 14:11
|
>> I know he very likely went out to prove a point and it's an impossible
>> situation for plod on the ground but it really does look like victim blaming.
I had some sympathy after the initial report which suggested he was just walking home after going to the Synagogue on the Sabbath. Much the same, in a way, as going to the Kosher supermarket.
I was though, as a long term habitué of 'Legal London' scratching my head as to the location of a Synagogue in that area.
Turns out he was trying to make a point. Whether an attack would have gone further the name calling he describes or worse than being being jostled we don't know becuase the Met stepped in to save him - as in all probability was his intent.
I don't know to what extent its true that there is extensive and overt anti-Semitism, as opposed to loud and vocal condemnation of Israeli actions which Israel's supporters are quick to condemn as Anti Semitic, at these demos. That's one reason I might go into London next Sunday to see for myself.
|
Don't get me wrong, I agree he was out to make a point and I think I am in sympathy with plod on the ground - in reality - it's one they can't win.
In a perfect world they would part the waves like in the Del video I posted and the man would be allowed to proceed. I acknowledge that it's not a perfect world.
What would be the situation in this made up situation: Same protesters walking past a hospital in London.
Jewish man wants to go to the hospital - either a pre-booked appointment or an emergency. You couldn't seriously accuse him or BoP in these circs. It's extreme but in reality it doesn't differ much from the initial scenario.
|
>> Jewish man wants to go to the hospital - either a pre-booked appointment or an
>> emergency. You couldn't seriously accuse him or BoP in these circs. It's extreme but in
>> reality it doesn't differ much from the initial scenario.
There's a question of what was Falter's primary purpose.
If, like the proverbial chicken crossing the road, he simply wanted to get to the other side that would be a reasonable analogy.
The longer version of the event described in the Graun piece I've linked suggests he was an activist on a mission.
|
>> >>Breach of the peace...
>>
>> The point being made that was that he was going about his legal rights.
Nope, the point being he was going about to deliberately cause a breech of the peace or other public disorder. You dont have that legal right.
|
>> It does seem that a large crowd, acting illegally, have more rights than someone wanting
>> to go about their business though and that the point he wanted to make.
I'm going into London sometime soon to see for myself what these demos look like and how widespread illegal stuff actually is.
|
>>I'm going to London sometime soon...
I have been to London since, but was in London in November when the anti Semitism march was taking place and had to cross the line to get to my destination.
No problem what so ever. Demonstrators were in a happy mood.
|
Try crossing the road whilst there is an Orange Walk going on in Scotland and the police will stop you.
Try standing at the side of the road with a Celtic top on and chances are the police will tell you to go away or words to that effect.
Yet again it’s about folk, in this instance Jews, trying to manipulate a situation for the likes.
And of course, Braverman jumped on the bandwagon.
The Newsagent podcast covered it well today with their two Jewish presenters. And don’t forget the London mayor elections aspect as well.
|
I think he was clearly trying to do more than walk across the road in an innocent fashion. He was out to make a point. The point about orange order marches was made this morning, they are 'blocked' in the sense that you walk across the road before or after. So stopping people cutting across protests etc is hardly anything new.
However his more broad point is why would there be a BOP simply to his presence, is it not on those reacting to keep their emotions and actions under control? Is it possible to make their point without others feeling threatened? His point about the nature of this protests is that enough of the people involved are anti-semitic enough of the time to make them a public order issue and should be banned.
I think people would be naive if they didn't think there were elements of antisemitism in the protests by both actions and words* but how many need to act that way to ban them? Clearly a matter of judgement.
* examples including shouting 'scum' at Jewish people, holding up signs showing a star of David in the bin and saying 'a cleaner world'
Last edited by: sooty123 on Mon 22 Apr 24 at 20:36
|
>>However his more broad point is why would there be a BOP simply to his presence, is it not on those reacting to keep their emotions and actions under control?
Yes it is.
But if he might reasonably expect his presence would provoke something then he has some responsibility. This sounds a bit like victim blaming but if it was the reason he was there...
|
If there was the threat of a BoP merely becuase Mr Falter was on the pavement wearing his Kippah and carrying his prayer shawl then I think sooty is right.
OTOH if he goes in amongst the demonstrators, walking in the opposite direction and even if only by his body language seeking to challenge them, then he's at least part of the problem. It's naïve to assume that there isn't an anti-semitic minority on these marches but equally Israel and its supporters are very keen indeed to conflate anti-Israel with antisemitism.
As previously I'm very cautious about following Suella Braverman into drawing parallels between these demos and NI but Bobby's example of the policing of sectarian marches in Scotland is a good one.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 23 Apr 24 at 08:22
|
|
Tommy Robinson WAS arrested though at that march. His trial is ongoing at the moment.
|
>> Tommy Robinson WAS arrested though at that march. His trial is ongoing at the moment.
Cleared as the Met were so incompetent the order he was said to be in breach of was wrongly dated:
uk.news.yahoo.com/tommy-robinson-cleared-refusing-leave-121154215.html?
|
Wait for the jokes about The Met not knowing what day it is.
It would be funny if it wasn't true.
|
>> Wait for the jokes about The Met not knowing what day it is.
>>
>> It would be funny if it wasn't true.
>>
If there wasn't a legal order in place, then arrest was probably illegal and the pepper spraying on Robinson probably amounts to assault.
This means that we taxpayers will likely have to foot the compensation bill as well.
|
>>At one stage he was poking his finger in my shoulder while e***** and jeffing at me to delete
>> it. Thought at one stage he was going to thump me or make a grab for the phone which was in
>> my pocket.
Well that is assault. Shame it's not on video, but then they would probably victim blame you.
We get similar problems on match days at the local football club on a road that I need to use to get to my home. The area is packed with old fogies and ambulances are regular visitors and can't get through.
Police have given fixed penalty notices, had cars removed etc. and have made announcements at games that this will happen next game etc.
Last edited by: zippy on Sun 21 Apr 24 at 15:20
|
A son used to have a flat with a dedicated parking space. Nice flat with views over a local park - the Falkirk Chateau & grounds used to belong to wealthy business men.
Park events had huge numbers of cars descend on the local streets and some drivers took it upon themselves to drive into the carpark at the back of the flats and park.
Confrontations as the home owners where blocked in or blocked from getting in.
Solution was to block in the illegals and phone the police - the illegals threatened harm to residents & car damage until plod arrived and they "calmed down"
|
Why phone the police ?
Wait until the ‘illegals’ have parked up then a carrot up the exhaust ( or expanding foam) and paint stripper once the event has started.
Or so I heard on the gripe vine...
|
Threatened for Taking Pictures - Terry
