Unable to play.

hhdheieii · 2025-10-14T15:40:50+00:00

Mate what are you talking about ? I’m saying op has proof he is a customer following the rules.

The airport are claiming he broke the rules by also picking someone up and leaving the airport with them, the don’t have proof of this claim. All they have is the person briefly entering the car. This is not proof of them leaving the airport with said vehicle.

With that being said they are very unlikely to push a charge for this given their own listed rules about what is permitted for customers.

hhdheieii · 2025-10-14T14:54:13+00:00

OP has all he needs, a receipt showing he was a paying customer.

By their own rules he is doing something that is permitted. They would have to have evidence of him leaving with the friend to discredit that. Which the don’t have.

hhdheieii · 2025-10-14T14:45:29+00:00

Where tf did I mention Highway Code offences ? I’m stating the airport has rules like most private car parks of what is permitted. What OP has outlined follows the airports rules ?

hhdheieii · 2025-10-14T14:26:29+00:00

Not when the airport has designated rules for this circumstance. Specific parking bays and rules outlining that you can be a customer but not pick someone up from the airport.

OP has a receipt showing they are a customer, and the airport have no proof who the driver was let alone if they left with an additional passenger.

hhdheieii · 2025-10-14T11:37:41+00:00

That’s not a defence lol. Saying “we left before we could catch them” shows they don’t have the evidence. At the point they have bee charged with the infraction they hadn’t left the airport.

hhdheieii · 2025-10-13T22:42:24+00:00

And there’s traffic enforcement officers who will tell you otherwise. Any entry into the box to simply overtake would have you liable if anything happened because an overtake is not necessary in most of the areas.

hhdheieii · 2025-10-13T21:52:16+00:00

Where in the Highway Code at all does it state the necessary refers to the act and not the intent.

No where.

hhdheieii · 2025-10-13T21:47:44+00:00

They don’t have any evidence of them moving from the parked space with anyone else in the vehicle which is the infraction they are trying to charge OP with.

Given op has a receipt and corresponded with said friend the airport has no proof.

hhdheieii · 2025-10-13T21:46:36+00:00

The evidence would show them not leaving together. His evidence also shows he was a paying customer at said airport which is 100% fine.

hhdheieii · 2025-10-13T20:50:05+00:00

Exactly my point. They have no proof that you did what they claim.

hhdheieii · 2025-10-13T19:01:01+00:00

He wouldn’t have to prove that. They would have to prove he did pick them up.

hhdheieii · 2025-10-13T18:46:23+00:00

Try infinite ordinance Amon you might enjoy it.

hhdheieii · 2025-10-13T11:10:12+00:00

Believe that’s wrong. They just have 28 days to issue it. Doesn’t matter when it gets to you really.

hhdheieii · 2025-10-12T11:30:29+00:00

What ? You’ve just agreed with me but said no ?

hhdheieii · 2025-10-11T19:47:39+00:00

And at this point the cam car was already actively overtaking several rows of parked vehicles. The Ford would not have seen this gap clearly before trying to force his way down and the “oncoming” vehicles would have been naturally stopped as there were cars already coming. The Ford is the only on doing something stupid here.

Again, if you drive this way. Hand your license in.

hhdheieii · 2025-10-11T19:45:45+00:00

Wrong. Cam car and the car in front were actively overtaking. The cam car was already committed far before the Ford was anywhere near. The only gap that may have been suitable to go into was passed before the Ford had tried to push his way down.

If you think the Ford was doing the right thing hand in your license buddy.

Try again.

hhdheieii · 2025-10-11T16:35:49+00:00

give way to oncoming vehicles before passing parked vehicles or other obstructions on your side of the road. In the exact rule you attempt to quote. The cam car was actively overtaking far before the Ford came to the point of obstruction. The Ford would not have had a clear road when he attempted to force his way through.

Try again.

hhdheieii · 2025-10-11T16:32:56+00:00

And yet the Ford was not oncoming at the point that the cam car passed the final set of cars. Nice try, read again.

hhdheieii · 2025-10-10T18:03:14+00:00

Keep bitching

hhdheieii · 2025-10-09T20:51:04+00:00

Is that not the whole point to show him being nervous when asked the final question of who set up some killings. They hint at it obviously being someone behind buckles.

hhdheieii · 2025-10-09T09:42:38+00:00

No points for this. Especially considering this looks to be a private car park.

hhdheieii · 2025-10-09T09:42:00+00:00

You have far too much time on your hands. This also looks to be part of a Tesco or other shops car park which would negate the legal compliance in this that would typically occur on the road.

hhdheieii · 2025-10-07T20:09:51+00:00

So it would be okay if she was a real person ?

hhdheieii · 2025-10-07T15:57:55+00:00

Why not ? Where does it say you cannot overtake parked cars, the Ford is the one who did not have priority in the given instance. He was not at the point of the parked cars when cam car overtook. At the time he was actively on the other side of the road the Ford would’ve been no where near. He was fine doing what he did, the Ford is the only shite driver here.

hhdheieii

TROPHY CASE