Euston ^megaphone man^ in court for reading railway byelaws outside station

[whole diary]

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the Hampstead & Highgate Express:

Euston ^megaphone man^ in court for reading railway byelaws outside train station


Danny Shine shouts his message outside Euston station. Picture: Polly Hancock

A musician was hauled into court for breaking railway byelaws ^ by reading those very restrictions with a megaphone outside a train station.

Wedding singer Danny Shine, 57, was summoned to Westminster Magistrates^ Court after ^making fun^ of the ^ridiculousness^ of the railway byelaws at Euston station on December 11 last year.

He was accused of breaching rules forbidding the causing of annoyance by using sound equipment ^without written permission^ at the railways, after he refused to stop when told to do so by rail staff and police.

The performer, of Meadow Drive, Hendon, appeared at court last Thursday, dressed in coat tails and a Jewish kippah.

But the case against him was dropped after the Crown Prosecution Service admitted there was insufficient evidence and it was not in the public interest.

The CPS also forgot to provide the case papers to its prosecutor in court.

The singer told the Ham&High he often visits Euston station and Camden Town with his loudhailer to ^make fun of the absurdity of society^, to provoke people to ^think outside of the box^ and also as a form of therapy.

^It^s my way of dealing with this system that is geared towards injustice,^ he said. ^Rightly or wrongly ^ I^m open to the possibility that I^m deluded or crazy ^ it feels to me that if there is a purpose to life, then this is mine.^

He was accosted by police on December 11 after rail staff had first asked him to stop. A crowd of about 15 to 20 people had gathered to see what was going on.

^I was making fun of the railway byelaws, they are absolutely ridiculous,^ he said. ^One is that you^re not allowed to sing without prior permission on any of the railway, to the annoyance of anybody.

^Network rail said ^Do you have permission?^ and I said I don^t need it, then they brought over a police officer. There was a crowd and the officer was embarrassed so they reported me.^

Mr Shine said he began about five years ago after being inspired by those who address crowds at Speakers^ Corner in Hyde Park. He said: ^I have stumbled across this rare ability to stand up in public spaces and, in a humorous way, to cover serious issues. I can^t stop doing it. I^ll carry on ^ although not at Euston anymore.^

A CPS spokesman admitted that there had been errors in the handling of the case by prosecutors and that ^there was insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction^.

Last year, Mr Shine ^ who has been nicknamed the ^megaphone man^ was prosecuted by Westminster Council for breaking a byelaw for ^the prevention and suppression of nuisances^ at Oxford Circus, but that case was also dropped.

He has backed the Keep Streets Live! campaign against Camden Council^s controversial busking licences.

[SDS]

I hope he applied for a costs order against the CPS.

I was also of the opinion that the CPS rarely deal with bye-law offences instead the relevant TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) or Notwork Rail would prosecute.

You should be aware that the transport legislation includes a series of offences which will not be prosecuted by CPS under section 3(2)(a) Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

[Chris from Nailsea]

In my personal opinion, rather than as an admin: the Crown Prosecution Service do sometimes appear to be making it up as they go along ... 

[chuffed]

'Making it up as they go along' ...what a great first line for a song ! I wouldn't be surprised if the erudite balladeer of the coffee shop forum (aka FT,N!) took up the challenge ....

[thetrout]

I personally like the quote in NRCoC^▸ (National Rail Conditions of Carriage) "Must not soil any part of the railway" ... But what happens when you flush a toilet on an FGW^▸ (First Great Western) HST^▸ (High Speed Train)...

And when was the last time that someone got prosecuted for vomiting when on or about the railway?

So the guy does have a point here.

Also there is the clause of "using any article to reproduce sound" or something similar... Except how do I ask the Train Manager on the 19:45 London - Plymouth service on a Saturday for a First Class Upgrade without using my voicebox or writing on a piece of paper/typing on a laptop keyboard? All of which will reproduce sound in different variants if you "think outside the box"

Off topic (Those of you who are unfortunate enough to have me on Facebook will remember my status about this yesterday) I was asked for ID to see a Rated 18 Film on Monday. When I posed the question if I had booked the ticket online, entered into a contract, arrived at the cinema and gone into the Film. What would've happened

"You may have been asked for ID at the checkpoint"

The poor chap was stunned when I said "May being the operative word, because I may not have been..." And in this particular cinema It's not hard to bypass the checkpoint for entry... It's unfortunate that the Costa Coffee store has it's toilets right next to the screen my film was showing... So if I booked online, Bought a coffee and applied some craftiness I cou... will shut up now

Anyhow the guy was convinced that I was old enough to see the film and sold the ticket anyway

Then of course there is this sign...



Just bear in mind it *may not* result in a ^70.00 Charge. I tweeted this to Waitrose a while back for clarification... No reply. I've taken that as an admission in itself

I really am a major pedant aren't I?

[Chris from Nailsea]

Then of course there is this sign...



Just bear in mind it *may not* result in a ^70.00 Charge. I tweeted this to Waitrose a while back for clarification... No reply. I've taken that as an admission in itself

I really am a major pedant aren't I?

Yes, you are. 

I must declare an interest here: I am currently employed by Waitrose / am a partner in the John Lewis Partnership.

Those signs are placed in shoppers car parks to warn drivers of vehicles that they may (but will not necessarily) incur a parking charge if they leave their vehicle unattended for more than a certain length of time.  That length of time is often specified as being two hours - on the basis that most shoppers will have completed their shopping within such a timescale.  On the other hand, office workers who try to use the shoppers car park to leave their vehicles there for the entire working day are perhaps taking the mickey.

The key point, I think, is the simple practicality that many transgressors will not necessarily incur a parking charge - so it would not be correct to state that they "will" incur a charge: however, if the parking attendant notices the situation, and chooses to complete the paperwork, they "may" incur a charge.  And if those perhaps unlucky few drivers do, they cannot say they weren't warned.

I hope this clarifies that particular issue. 

[JayMac]

Despite all that, that sign is almost entirely legally deficient. Waitrose/Euro Car Parks can impose the charge by way of a speculative invoice, but recovering it is going to be difficult if the signs, particularly those at the entrance to the car park, are the same as that pictured. That sign is, in my opinion, not compliant with The British Parking Association's (BPA) Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) code of practice. If a private parking company wants to obtain the registered keeper's details of a vehicle it believes has breached the terms in a private car park, it has to comply with this code to get those detail from the DVLA^▸ (Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency).

It is the signs that set out the implied contractual terms that a driver is agreeing to by parking in the car park. If the terms of the contract are breached then only actual loses can be claimed by the party affected by the breach. It's very hard to argue that ^70 represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss in a free car park.

Private parking companies (PPC) like Euro Car Parks are a modern scourge for motorists. Many are ex-clampers. In ostensibly free car parks, they only make money from alleged transgressions.

The Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 sets out the legal basis for landholders and/or their agents to recover parking charges on private land. With no mention on that sign of the BPA's AOS and no mention of an independent appeals service as required under POFA, it's doubtful whether either Waitrose or Euro Car Parks can legally recover the ^70.

Of course there may be other signage in the car park that clearly confers the contractual terms and mentions the appeals process, but that won't change the fact that it's highly unlikely that the ^70 represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss (GPEOL). Every instance where GPEOL has been raised as a defence with the independent appeals service (POPLA - Parking On Private Land Appeals) has resulted in the PPCs claim being struck out.

POPLA decisions are binding only on the PPC and not the motorist. Even if the motorist loses at POPLA the PPC still has to take them to court to attempt recovery of the charge. A growing number of judges in the small claims track are deciding in favour of the motorist due to the behaviour of PPCs. Defences that have proved successful include: the PPC having no standing to bring the claim; the charge not representing the actual loss suffered by the landholder, inadequate or legally deficient signage. One particularly well known case saw the PPCs legal representative nearly talk herself into a contempt of court charge when it was found her client had no legal standing to bring a claim. She was told the manifest discrepancies in her client's case were an abuse of process and if she had any other cases about to come to court where her client had no legal standing, she should bring a toothbrush.

Yes, landholders have an absolute right to control access to their land. But this method, with a PPC imposing charges for breaching terms in an implied contract, where the implication is only conveyed by signage, is deeply flawed. If you want to charge non-shoppers ^70 for parking beyond 2 hours then use a barrier system. And employ the attendants directly.   

At least Waitrose aren't using ParkingEye as their parking contractor. They are the poster boys and girls for all that is wrong in the PPC world.

[SDS]

Has this turned into pepipo forum now?

[Btline]

Well said BNM. Most parking "fines" are unenforceable. If they try to get money off you, simply write back and state you did not enter into or recognise any contract. You won't get a response...

Greedy car parking firms have been ripping off cash strapped motorists for too long!

[Puffing Billy]

I completely support the authorities in this matter. I am sick of self-important bandwagon-jumping "activists" trying to inflict their tired old dogma on us. Unlike some countries, where such measures are born out of desperation, here we have plenty of opportunities for freely expressing our views in a dignified manner, and if people like this self-styled folk-hero had anything useful to say, people would stop to listen without him having to shout. At least if he ended up with a sore throat you could concede that he was prepared to make a sacrifice for his beliefs, but artificial amplification is a cheap and selfish way of trying to drown out your critics; its unauthorised use should be completely banned, and the human rights mafia trying to stop that ban being enforced told to take a hike.

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

Whilst talking about ambiguous parking signs I recall that over 40 years ago my, who worked for the brewers Whitbreads had a long job of removing all the "p-arking signs at its local pubs and replacing them with new wording. The old signs read "Vehicles are parked at owners risk". Someone must had a vehicle damaged and tried to claim from Whitbread as the sign could be interpreted as parking at the site owner's risk. The court ruled that the signed was ambiguous and the new signs read something like "Vehicles are parked at the vehicle owner's risk . . . plus a disclaimer on any liability by Whitbread. It just went to show how careful you have to be in such signing.

[bobm]

That length of time is often specified as being two hours - on the basis that most shoppers will have completed their shopping within such a timescale. 

Those in Teignmouth have to be a bit more fleet of foot as they only get 90 minutes.... 

[thetrout]

If you want to charge non-shoppers ^70 for parking beyond 2 hours then use a barrier system.

That's a good idea unless the Car park uses ANPR Cameras. A while ago my friend received a parking fine from a Superstore who use Barriers and ANPR Cameras at a store we visited (I won't name). It was the Christmas period and the store was unusually busy and short staffed. The limit was 3 Hours and it took us just under 2 hours to get the shopping done and through the checkouts. We had also stopped for lunch in the store first in the hope that things would improve. They didn't

Anyhow we arrived back at the car with just over 30 minutes to spare. Before leaving I decided before being dropped off at the station that I needed to go to the toilet. Walked back into the store and my friend said she'd pick me up from the pickup point outside the entrance thus freeing the space. As this was pre-trout-repair days my duration of occupation of the facilities was 35 minutes (I'm sorry I can remember that )

Needless to say I came back to her car and off we went thinking no more about it... Not until an ^85.00 Penalty Charge hit her doormat around 6 weeks later. The letter was clearly computer generated as it showed her car entering the car park and leaving again in 2 different photographs timestamped... The overstay time? 5 minutes and 37 seconds

Consequently I wrote to them on her behalf and started a game of letter tennis with the PPC. Explained the store was unusually busy + short staffed, we had stopped for lunch and the penultimate delay being my defective excretion functions. Needless to say the PPC wrote back refuting my claim that it takes a normal human being 35 minutes to use a toilet.

Letter went back refuting their claim that I was a normal human being, that 35 minutes durations of occupation for me were the lower end of the normal time. But despite no legal obligation on me to do so, I would supply evidence to both of those statements.

Letter came back refuting my claims of not being normal and if I could supply satisfactory evidence to my medical condition they would write the ticket off as a GWG (Good Will Gesture)

Letter sent back asking them to define normal (It's not possible, so don't try!). Stated that ^85.00 was not a reasonable charge to use a Public Toilet when the Travelodge down the road charged ^55.00 for a nights stay. The finale was the letter from my consultant showing some lovely photographs of what was found in my errr... internal organs which ultimately lead to my "repairs" last year. I concluded the letter with the following sentence:

"Enjoy your lunch!"

Nearly 2 years on I am still waiting for them to reply to that letter... Now who can guess the PPC Operator... Bignosemac probably knows

On a serious note. I think it's fair to say that if you ask me a question or to prove something... Be prepared for me to give the honest answer... Even if it's not the one you want to see/hear...


Then of course there was the Parking Ticket I received in my own name... Those who know my history will realise why I found that ever so slightly amusing!

Apologies for hijacking the thread *reminds self to behave*

[Chris from Nailsea]

Hmm. 

As we now seem to have strayed so far off the subject of the original post as to make it probably not worth the effort of trying to bring us back on track, I now offer this further obfuscation on the apparently vexed matter of shopper parking in Nailsea - from the North Somerset Times:

New twist in car park maintenance dispute

Parking regulations will not be enforced and the facilities not maintained if North Somerset Council takes over Link Road car park, according to Nailsea Town Council.

Town leaders met with officers from the district authority to discuss North Somerset Council^s announcement that it will be taking over the running of Link Road and Station Road car parks.

The facilities are currently owned by North Somerset Council, but Nailsea Town Council has been running them for 15 years.

Town councillors are concerned the car parks will fall into 
a state of disrepair if North Somerset takes them over, and their fears were confirmed at the meeting last week.

Town council clerk Ian Morrell said: ^They made it clear while negotiations with Waitrose are ongoing they are not going to enforce the regulations in Link Road. That^s totally unacceptable because that would create a free-for-all and disadvantage shoppers and Waitrose.^

Speaking at a Nailsea Town Council meeting on March 26, chairman Clare Hunt said: ^It seemed quite obvious no money has been and will be spent on 
the car parks because there are negotiations ongoing with Waitrose.^

North Somerset claims it wants to take over the car parks to resolve a legal issue and so it can raise money from fines to pay for attendants at Nailsea and Backwell Railway Station car park.

But Nailsea Town Council is refusing to hand them over if they are not going to be maintained or time restrictions enforced, which could result in shoppers leaving their cars on site all day.

Mr Morrell added: ^We accept its rights as the landowner but on behalf of the residents of Nailsea we are insistent the car parks are managed to the same standard they are now. The town council is saying that it should continue to manage the car parks the way it has done and North Somerset needs to come back with a proposal for the management of the car parks that meets the current standard, at least.^