What to stick on his windscreen which wont come off easily? [OT]

Grouch, I am the OP. You write elsewhere in this thread that this query of mine is spam.

Why not killfile me and/or the subject matter of this thread if you have nothing useful to add?

Then look up what SPAM means.

At ease everyone. It's just a false alert from BORG.

You don't have to shop at the supermarket.

Mary

Missing lungs don't necessarily disable one.

Our champion hill climber in the cycling club only had one lung.

Mary

You might have been someone's little darling once ...

Mary

I think that the extent of the criminal in this case damage is rather limited. I do not propose to etch the windscreen or to actually damage it.

In fact with a bit of work and the right solvents and a good pair of overalls it could all be sorted out in half an hour. No more than a tenner including labout I would guess.

If you are the driver and have to go and fetch those items but have no car to travel in then it would take much longer.

Hardly worth pursuing a court case over.

And while some people need to take their kids with them, they also need to understand that they have a responsibility to ensure they behave.

You don't understand. Parent and children spaces are wider than normal parking spaces to enable a pushchair (or trolley) to be put at the side of the carand the child unstrapped from the seat, loaded into the pushchair )or trolley) and strapped in again. That's very difficult in a normal parking space. It's even worse if you have more than one young child.

The special parking bays aren't necessarily closer to the shop than others nor are they for children who can walk but when they are they do make it easier for other shoppers because the child laden trolleys or pushchairs aren't obstructing others.

Mary

The residents effectively own the car park. Let me explain the details:

-------

The flats are privately owned and the landlord is a private individual. So the landlord of the flats is the owner in law of the car park.

The landlord has leased (for 999 years) the car park to the maintenance company which is designated to run the flats. The car park is clearly shown in the lease.

The maintenance company is operated by the 12 residents (who are the shareholders and from which the directors of the company are appointed).

Through the maintenance charges the leaseholders pay for the upkeep, maintenance, improvement, cleaning, etc of the car park.

So we leaseholders (i.e. residents) effectively own the car park and we are responsible for it.

In message , Alan Gauton writes

I have a friend with a son who is severely mentally and physically disabled. This lad would carry on struggling long after others had given in. To get a disabled badge (or any other disability allowance) you had to 'prove' you couldn't walk the length of the hospital corridor. You could not say to him "Give in when it hurts - make it look bad" So he was taken for a loooong walk around before his interview, by which time he was too knackered to walk along the said corridor. Possibly slightly dishonest, but not as bad as the dishonesty of some claimants

Johannes, why not check out "cross-posting" in Google and see how many crossposts GNKSA recommends as a working maximum before it gives its seal of approval.

That could be far and away the most sensible answer to the problem.

I'm sure the company would do this at no cost to the rezzies, but you'd need to negotiate the terms with them, after getting authority from the management committee.

For the first Saturday of operation, ensure the rezzies park somewhere else, in order to maximise the potential for outsider parking in the car park. The clamping company could earn big money that day, and the persistent parkers will quickly get the message.

Mary Fisher ( snipped-for-privacy@zetnet.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Nor do they. Nor do they have to inflict their repulsive crotchfruit on me.

I have at least as much right to be there, if not more, than the kids do, and I'm causing those parents FAR less inconvenience by going to the supermarket than they cause me by taking their ASBO-trainees with them.

I don't understand the mentality of parents. If I were to inflict my choice of childlessness upon them, they would scream blue murder. So why is it perfectly OK for them to inflict their choice on me?

In message , Mary Fisher writes

I certainly wouldn't have been allowed to damage other people's property.

Try condensed milk - I can remember my mother sticking a couple of tiles back onto the fireplace with it when I was a child --long time ago :-))

You don't have to.

That could still be concidered criminal damadge.

My best advice would be higher a legal advisor befor doing anything shouldnt' cost you more than a couple of grand to clear up how harsh the courts will be.

In message , Johannes writes

It is clearly headed with its content. If you are not interested then simply do not read it and leave the rest of us to our amusing conversation. With all respect etc. etc.

In message , Adrian writes

From the supermarkets point of view it is in their interests to encourage children because the parents spend a lot more. My kids have grown up but I can remember well

I choose not to apply for a badge, but I often have problems managing shopping, so frequently use the disabled spaces at the supermarket. Should I have to spend hours trying to get my window clean for daring not to give the civil service even more paperwork?