...
Reading the transcript, his "beef" comes across very clearly - he says that penalties (such as fines) cannot be imposed except by a court, and he cites the legislation which he relies upon for his contention. So he isn't saying that he (or anyone else) should be allowed to park where they like. He is saying that if the state wishes to penalise who park unlawfully, it should do so via the courts.
That's all he's saying.
Now you might agree with it, or you might not agree with it. But it's easy to understand, either way.
Clearly not. The parking comes across (to me) as an incidental side issue for him, ie, as a matter of principle.
That is not what he is saying. He is saying that the penalty, if imposed at all, should only be imposed after a conviction in a court. For most other things (eg, exceeding a speed limit), the accused has the right to a trial and the opportunity to challenge evidence. But not so with "decriminalised parking schemes", where "the accused" is simply "the offender" without pbutting go and without collecting £200, on the unchallengeable word of a bureaucrat. Surely everyone can see why this man is concerned, even if they don't agree with him? I knew nothing about any of this before starting to read this thread. But I know it now. Why are so many people so spectacularly missing (or perhaps avoiding) the point?
