North Yorkshire Ban Confirmed (1 Viewer)

[sdc77]

Errrrrr....well you have a trial and challenge the lawfulness and the evidence as the other guy did rather than meekly accepting some silly petty prosecution.
The presumption at the start of the trial is you are innocent until PROVEN guilty which is the foundation of our criminal law.....unless you accept it of course like these two in which case the evidence and lawfulness are not tested in court

that guy got off because of an abuse of process .. not because over-nighting in a motorhome in a designated area isn't illegal. It is.. the Traffic order is lawful

 

[sdc77]

Can I just ask... why would you want to park up overnight in a street or car park unless you live there or work there..
Surely if you park up overnight in a motorhome or camper van then you would sleep in it?
I think pretending that's not the case is a little naive?
I would like to park up anywhere I fancied ... but I wouldn't want motorhomes or camper vans outside my house.. esp when a lot of them (not all) don't care about the local environment and are taking up spaces I could use. The council's are there for residents first.
I'll take a snap of a camper van parked close to me in East London in a bit when I walk the mutt..

 

[sdc77]

Been here for at least a month ... increase in rubbish near it .. bread wrappers milk cartons etc ..
I'd be happy with no overnight camping being enforced on this road in Newham

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

Can I just ask... why would you want to park up overnight in a street or car park unless you live there or work there..
Surely if you park up overnight in a motorhome or camper van then you would sleep in it?
I think pretending that's not the case is a little naive?
I would like to park up anywhere I fancied ... but I wouldn't want motorhomes or camper vans outside my house.. esp when a lot of them (not all) don't care about the local environment and are taking up spaces I could use. The council's are there for residents first.
I'll take a snap of a camper van parked close to me in East London in a bit when I walk the mutt..

I can understand why people would camp for a night or two in a street/car park, basically because it is convenient or they like the view. We stayed at the Canterbury P&R for a couple of nights last year. Great for seeing the city and we didn't need to get tables, chairs &c out because we (like most members) are self contained.

You're absolutely right, though, to say that it is naive (at the very least) to pretend that using a van for habitation is only parking. However, people make up all sorts of excuses to justify their actions in all aspects of life.

Councils have to balance the competing interests of all sides of the communities they serve. That often means that some people can't have what they want but that's life. Unfortunately some people don't like that so adopt the Violet Elizabeth Bott solution of "I'll thcweam and thcweam until I'm thick", which is (of course) no solution at all.

 

[angusboy]

Was that all Bridlington car parks Stephen? According to the last statement Iunfortunately ifrom the council it should be possible to park at Hilderthorpe Road and at the Park & Ride (they will open the barriers if they are in place to stop travellers). If that has changed (which would be contrary to information on their web site) I'll ask them for an update.

Im not sureif it was all but a few , i was getting looked at a bit strange did not feel good at all . One of the lows unfor

 

[angusboy]

Dont know what happened to last post, yeh unfortunately did not feel good about this place one of the lows of a 1200 mile trip dissapointing in my own country, regards steve

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

Dont know what happened to last post, yeh unfortunately did not feel good about this place one of the lows of a 1200 mile trip dissapointing in my own country, regards steve

Pity about that. We have stayed at THSs at Fraisthorpe and the Regatta Fields so haven't had to find a car park for the van ourselves but have seen several vans using the places I mentioned without problems.

As a general point I would recommend to anyone that they check parking availability before visiting places, whether it be by using my web site or by looking at council web sites directly. If information is not available on-line then contacting the council by phone or e-mail is a good idea. The more that councils have to respond to requests from prospective visitors the more likely they are to pro-actively publish the information (whether it be details of available spaces or not).

 

[Big Nick]

Balderdash.

Explain why you think so?
That's exactly what has happened, as soon as someone has put the legality of this parking restriction to the test in court the case was thrown out despite the council employing a barrister at great expense to try and get it upheld.
If you plead guilty there is no legal debate in a court trial as the prosecution case is completely accepted by all parties and the case goes straight to sentence.
My understanding is firstly the evidence in this case did not stand up to scrutiny in that his vehicle could not be proved to be over the height restriction or proved that he was asleep in it.
The second part was an abuse of process in that he was prosecuted for his first offence when the ticket stated a warning should be issued first.

 

[Wildbill]

Last time I was there there were no signs prohibiting motorhome parking in the sealife carpark. Has this changed?

no

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

Explain why you think so?
That's exactly what has happened, as soon as someone has put the legality of this parking restriction to the test in court the case was thrown out despite the council employing a barrister at great expense to try and get it upheld.
If you plead guilty there is no legal debate in a court trial as the prosecution case is completely accepted by all parties and the case goes straight to sentence.
My understanding is firstly the evidence in this case did not stand up to scrutiny in that his vehicle could not be proved to be over the height restriction or proved that he was asleep in it.
The second part was an abuse of process in that he was prosecuted for his first offence when the ticket stated a warning should be issued first.

I was referring to the absurd claim that the evidence and lawfulness are not tested in court if somebody pleads guilty.

 

[Big Nick]

I was referring to the absurd claim that the evidence and lawfulness are not tested in court if somebody pleads guilty.

So you believe that if someone 'puts their hands up' and pleads guilty someone then comes along and checks all the points to prove have been proven then?

 

[GJH]

So you believe that if someone 'puts their hands up' and pleads guilty someone then comes along and checks all the points to prove have been proven then?

If somebody pleads guilty they have admitted that the points have been proven.

They were guilty, they knew it and the only thing to their credit is that they didn't force the court to waste its time.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Big Nick]

If somebody pleads guilty they have admitted that the points have been proven.

They were guilty, they knew it and the only thing to their credit is that they didn't force the court to waste its time.

Yes but it's not always as simple as that and sometimes to blindly accept you've committed an offence without actually doing some research into it wouldn't be for me
An example where up to 56000 people 'were guilty and knew it' but actually there was no power to fine them in the first place
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-28270571

 

[GJH]

Yes but it's not always as simple as that and sometimes to blindly accept you've committed an offence without actually doing some research into it wouldn't be for me
An example where up to 56000 people 'were guilty and knew it' but actually there was no power to fine them in the first place
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-28270571

That's only a valid analogy for Sprott, not the other two.
In the York case the legal order was inadequately drafted. In the Sprott case there were similar errors.
In the cases of Hayes and Fox, though, there were no such errors. The legal order was valid and they were guilty of breaching it.
You don't prove a point by comparing apples and oranges.

 

[John & Joan]

Last time I was there there were no signs prohibiting motorhome parking in the sealife carpark. Has this changed?

THE BOROUGH OF SCARBOROUGH
(OFF STREET PARKING PLACES)
ORDER 2012

18 Scalby Mills
motor cars, light vehicles, motor cycles, motor cycle combinations and motor coaches

wholly within a designated

parking bay At all days 9 am to 6 pm 1 Mch - 31 Oct Tourist B see Schedule C

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Big Nick]

That's only a valid analogy for Sprott, not the other two.
In the York case the legal order was inadequately drafted. In the Sprott case there were similar errors.
In the cases of Hayes and Fox, though, there were no such errors. The legal order was valid and they were guilty of breaching it.
You don't prove a point by comparing apples and oranges.

I wasn't, I was showing that accepting a prosecution without looking into the legislation and evidence offered isn't always the best course of action

 

[GJH]

I wasn't, I was showing that accepting a prosecution without looking into the legislation and evidence offered isn't always the best course of action

If one is guilty - as those two were - then it is the correct course of action. To do otherwise compounds the offence by wasting taxpayers' money and the time of the court.

 

[jezport]

Some people just accept the conviction knowing they are not guilty for a number of reasons. They may not want the hassle of a court appearance, they cant afford the time off work or they cant afford a solicitor to mention a few.

If there is incorrect evidence or the legislation id flawed then there shouldn't have been a prosecution in the first place. Prosecution under these circumstances can lead British law on a slippery slope down to the levels of certain other countries like China and Russia.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

Some people just accept the conviction knowing they are not guilty for a number of reasons. They may not want the hassle of a court appearance, they cant afford the time off work or they cant afford a solicitor to mention a few.

If there is incorrect evidence or the legislation id flawed then there shouldn't have been a prosecution in the first place. Prosecution under these circumstances can lead British law on a slippery slope down to the levels of certain other countries like China and Russia.

That's as maybe. Doesn't alter the fact that Hayes and Fox were guilty though.