Waltham Forest Council has revealed that 6,200 tickets have been issued after a new CCTV camera was stationed near a 24 hour bus lane

East London and West Essex Guardian Series: Sprayed over sign on Whipps Cross Road. Sprayed over sign on Whipps Cross Road.

A total of 6,200 tickets have been issued following the installation of a controversial new CCTV camera.

Dozens of motorists are now challenging fines for driving in a bus lane near the Green Man roundabout in Leytonstone.

Road markings for the bus lane in Whipps Cross Road end about 10m before the roundabout to enable increased access.

However, drivers claim they are still being fined for using the lane once the markings have ended because a sign indicating the end of the restriction was recently moved closer to the roundabout.

However, the sign has been vandalised and the wording spayed over.

A council spokeswoman revealed that thousands of the £65 tickets have been issued.

She said: “6,200 tickets have been generated since the camera was set up, but a number of these will be duplicate tickets given to the same motorists on different dates within a matter of days, where they have not initially realised they have committed an offence.

“In these instances it is standard practice – where a motorist appeals – to cancel duplicate tickets so we would encourage those affected to go through the usual appeals process and we will of course consider each case on its own merits.”

A meeting at Wood Street Post Office in Walthamstow saw dozens of other drivers come together to vent their anger after receiving tickets.

John Davey, 67, has demanded that an on-site survey is conducted by the council as not only are the markings confusing drivers, the sign has been vandalised.

Mr Davey of Chadwick Road said that he has seen tens of people contesting tickets.

He said: “I’m not joking, every time I go by there is someone taking a picture of the sign.

“I have been fined twice. By the time I knew I had done anything wrong I had a second ticket.

“I know about 15 people are contesting tickets on the basis that the sign has been vandalised and you cannot see when you are and are not allowed in it.

“It is just about making money.”

Comments (18)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:37pm Fri 28 Feb 14

mdj says...

And still no comment from the local Councillor, Mr Loakes? He's usually very vocal on the topic of 'naming and shaming'.
And still no comment from the local Councillor, Mr Loakes? He's usually very vocal on the topic of 'naming and shaming'. mdj
  • Score: 10

12:47pm Fri 28 Feb 14

livedheretoolong says...

That's £403,000 if anyone is interested. A nice little earner!

Hopefully the money will be spent on a good cause and not some dodgy partnership or consultancy business.
That's £403,000 if anyone is interested. A nice little earner! Hopefully the money will be spent on a good cause and not some dodgy partnership or consultancy business. livedheretoolong
  • Score: 7

1:59pm Fri 28 Feb 14

DogandDuck says...

The only people who have "vandalised" the sign are LBWF themselves.

The warning sign had a non-compliant yellow and black "24 hour Bus Lane" sign and it has been sprayed over.

A with-flow bus lane warning sign with no times specified defaults to "At any time" Drivers can't use that as an excuse.

By covering up the old yellow and black sign it actually makes the warning sign compliant although its position is non-compliant and should be 45m before the taper road markings start, not on the point of the taper where it is currently positioned.
The only people who have "vandalised" the sign are LBWF themselves. The warning sign had a non-compliant yellow and black "24 hour Bus Lane" sign and it has been sprayed over. A with-flow bus lane warning sign with no times specified defaults to "At any time" Drivers can't use that as an excuse. By covering up the old yellow and black sign it actually makes the warning sign compliant although its position is non-compliant and should be 45m before the taper road markings start, not on the point of the taper where it is currently positioned. DogandDuck
  • Score: 7

6:04pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Stevo98 says...

"If no sign is visible, assume that the bus lane is operational 24 hours a day."

It's a basic driving skill to be aware of the rules. It's no surprise that so many East London drivers are so incompetent.
"If no sign is visible, assume that the bus lane is operational 24 hours a day." It's a basic driving skill to be aware of the rules. It's no surprise that so many East London drivers are so incompetent. Stevo98
  • Score: -4

8:20pm Fri 28 Feb 14

DogandDuck says...

I have been informed by a reliable source that the camera has been switched off and will be removed, that the signs will be increased and improved and that anyone who got a ticket is strongly advised to appeal.
I have been informed by a reliable source that the camera has been switched off and will be removed, that the signs will be increased and improved and that anyone who got a ticket is strongly advised to appeal. DogandDuck
  • Score: 4

8:53pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Rafic Soormally says...

LBWF are in the habit of issuing such PCN's and they always find 'reasons' to justify their action however wrong they are. Unfortunately, the Ombudsman seems to be merely an extended arm of the Council as they are more concerned to save money. Well in advance, the Council tends to claim that the Adjudicator and the Ombudsman would agree with them when those instances are supposed to be 'independent'.

Only the free press can remedy this endemic problem which has become an epidemic.

I have always maintained that, when issuing a PCN, the council is under obligation to produce evidence of the alleged offence in the light of the alleged restrictions (situating both the vehicle and the restrictions) at the exact time of the alleged offence given that the offence is one of "strict liability". Likewise, the Council should produce strict evidence.

The Council's policy that, if paid within 14 days of the date of the PCN, the penalty charge would be reduced to 50%, makes it sound like an 'early payment discount' to induce PCN recipients to pay rather than dispute, which is totally wrong and has nothing to do with upholding the law and sounds more like a business to make money. On ordinary person normally does not have the stamina and financial means to fight the abuses of the Council which, like the Adjudicator and the Ombudsman, benefits of taxpayers' money. The government should make illegal such payment discount policy in the process of upholding law and order on our roads.

An aggrieved party
LBWF are in the habit of issuing such PCN's and they always find 'reasons' to justify their action however wrong they are. Unfortunately, the Ombudsman seems to be merely an extended arm of the Council as they are more concerned to save money. Well in advance, the Council tends to claim that the Adjudicator and the Ombudsman would agree with them when those instances are supposed to be 'independent'. Only the free press can remedy this endemic problem which has become an epidemic. I have always maintained that, when issuing a PCN, the council is under obligation to produce evidence of the alleged offence in the light of the alleged restrictions (situating both the vehicle and the restrictions) at the exact time of the alleged offence given that the offence is one of "strict liability". Likewise, the Council should produce strict evidence. The Council's policy that, if paid within 14 days of the date of the PCN, the penalty charge would be reduced to 50%, makes it sound like an 'early payment discount' to induce PCN recipients to pay rather than dispute, which is totally wrong and has nothing to do with upholding the law and sounds more like a business to make money. On ordinary person normally does not have the stamina and financial means to fight the abuses of the Council which, like the Adjudicator and the Ombudsman, benefits of taxpayers' money. The government should make illegal such payment discount policy in the process of upholding law and order on our roads. An aggrieved party Rafic Soormally
  • Score: 5

10:35pm Fri 28 Feb 14

DogandDuck says...

The facts on which to base your appeal are as follows

The 958 sign (Warning of Bus Lane) is adjacent to the point of the taper and on this 40mph road it should be 45m before the taper. Please refer to Traffic signs manual chapter 3 regulatory signs (2008) Section 15.9

The Road Marking legend says "Bus and (cycle symbol) only" This can ONLY be used on a contra-flow bus lane and MUST NOT be used in a with-flow bus lane. Whipps Cross Road is a with-flow bus lane. Please refer to Traffic signs manual chapter 5 road markings (2003) section 17.6

The 964 sign (End of Bus Lane) should be in line with end of solid line showing the bus lane. LBWF relocated this approx 35m down the road and it is now approx 15m beyond the end of the solid line.
Please refer to Traffic signs manual chapter 3 regulatory signs (2008) section 15.13 in conjunction with figure 15-1

Also there is no evidence of a Traffic Management Order to extend the bus lane.

Good luck.
The facts on which to base your appeal are as follows The 958 sign (Warning of Bus Lane) is adjacent to the point of the taper and on this 40mph road it should be 45m before the taper. Please refer to Traffic signs manual chapter 3 regulatory signs (2008) Section 15.9 The Road Marking legend says "Bus and (cycle symbol) only" This can ONLY be used on a contra-flow bus lane and MUST NOT be used in a with-flow bus lane. Whipps Cross Road is a with-flow bus lane. Please refer to Traffic signs manual chapter 5 road markings (2003) section 17.6 The 964 sign (End of Bus Lane) should be in line with end of solid line showing the bus lane. LBWF relocated this approx 35m down the road and it is now approx 15m beyond the end of the solid line. Please refer to Traffic signs manual chapter 3 regulatory signs (2008) section 15.13 in conjunction with figure 15-1 Also there is no evidence of a Traffic Management Order to extend the bus lane. Good luck. DogandDuck
  • Score: 9

10:38pm Fri 28 Feb 14

DogandDuck says...

Links to the Department of Transport Traffic Signs and Road Markings documents mentioned above.

https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/uploads/sy
stem/uploads/attachm
ent_data/file/223943
/traffic-signs-manua
l-chapter-03.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/uploads/sy
stem/uploads/attachm
ent_data/file/223667
/traffic-signs-manua
l-chapter-05.pdf
Links to the Department of Transport Traffic Signs and Road Markings documents mentioned above. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/223943 /traffic-signs-manua l-chapter-03.pdf https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/223667 /traffic-signs-manua l-chapter-05.pdf DogandDuck
  • Score: 4

11:11pm Fri 28 Feb 14

HottRedMan says...

I agree it is about making money. I have no idea since it has been put there some years ago why it was 24 hour, as there was never that much traffic. It should have been Mon - Sat 7am-10am and 4pm-7pm. Also I doubt the 257 route even loses much time here to the roundabout approach. More time would be lost by the fiasco Leytonstone high Road one way system.
I have driven past here many times and witness lazy **** drivers who have NO "lane discipline" and tend to have their wheels over the white line of the bus lane or cut in before the end of it. Sorry to say, but you do not have a leg to stand on in this case, you have fallen into the trap. I do NOT feel sorry for these drivers, as they are the type that cut in others, have crap lane disclipline and very poor reading and planning of the road ahead.

BTW, the clown that sprayed over the 24 hour bus lane it does not make a difference, they are only making it WORSE for other motorists. Because if a bus lane sign does not include any timings on it, it then means the bus lane is 24 hours. So in this case where LBWF have put an additional sign saying 24 hours, they have only helped. Some other councils do not even do that where 24 hour bus lanes are in force.

Years ago this always seemed as a trap to me. I also thought the lampost CCTV camera at the Green Man roundabout near the Hollybush Hill junction was filming the bus lane, but I guess not.
I agree it is about making money. I have no idea since it has been put there some years ago why it was 24 hour, as there was never that much traffic. It should have been Mon - Sat 7am-10am and 4pm-7pm. Also I doubt the 257 route even loses much time here to the roundabout approach. More time would be lost by the fiasco Leytonstone high Road one way system. I have driven past here many times and witness lazy **** drivers who have NO "lane discipline" and tend to have their wheels over the white line of the bus lane or cut in before the end of it. Sorry to say, but you do not have a leg to stand on in this case, you have fallen into the trap. I do NOT feel sorry for these drivers, as they are the type that cut in others, have crap lane disclipline and very poor reading and planning of the road ahead. BTW, the clown that sprayed over the 24 hour bus lane it does not make a difference, they are only making it WORSE for other motorists. Because if a bus lane sign does not include any timings on it, it then means the bus lane is 24 hours. So in this case where LBWF have put an additional sign saying 24 hours, they have only helped. Some other councils do not even do that where 24 hour bus lanes are in force. Years ago this always seemed as a trap to me. I also thought the lampost CCTV camera at the Green Man roundabout near the Hollybush Hill junction was filming the bus lane, but I guess not. HottRedMan
  • Score: 2

12:22am Sat 1 Mar 14

Villagecranberry says...

Then again, if you are a passenger on a bus and held up by car drivers hogging the lane it serves a purpose.
Then again, if you are a passenger on a bus and held up by car drivers hogging the lane it serves a purpose. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -5

8:32am Sat 1 Mar 14

Rafic Soormally says...

It is the duty of the Council to ensure that order is maintained on our roads since the traffic system is quite complex.

The problem is that they tend to devise unreasonable methods to 'catch' drivers to make money by "DISHING OUT" PCNs in cases such as :

(1) Where one of their spy cctv cars would park illegally causing obstruction to traffic, and DISHING OUT PCNs alleging that they were taken at a particular junction (eg. Blackhorse Lane / Forest Road) when the spycar is parked in a restricted area on Forest Road about 100 yards from the said junction, and the restricted sign found in Blackhorse Lane out of its view.

(2) Where they do not produce strict evidence of the alleged offence, eg, by situating the vehicle in the clear visibility of the restrictive sign. They tend to produce a picture of the restriction, taken at a different time, in the absence of the offending vehicle.

(3) Given that traffic offences are offences of strict liability, drivers are entitled to request strict evidence from the Council. But they tend to come up with all sorts of regulations arguing that they do not have to produce such strict evidence by situating the vehicle in the clear visibility of the sign. This is clearly an abuse of power. But the Council argues that those are acceptable to the 'independent' Adjudicator. Generally, drivers pay the fine at the 'discounted' rate because they do not have the time and resources to challenge a powerful council.

In the bus lane case on Whipps Cross Road, E11 in this report, the bus lane placard sign is not within sight of the cctv camera. So, the Council is unable to swear as to the visibility and adequacy of the sign. When challenged, they would send a picture of the placard taken at a different time without situating its visibility and adequacy at the time of the alleged offence. They are therefore importing 'evidence' into the PCN. They appear to use this tactic to DISH OUT PCNs and make plenty of money. The law must be clarified, changed if necessary, to prevent such abuse of power by the Council. In this reported case, as far as the driver is concerned, there are no time restrictions on the placard sign and all PCNs dished out should be cancelled.
It is the duty of the Council to ensure that order is maintained on our roads since the traffic system is quite complex. The problem is that they tend to devise unreasonable methods to 'catch' drivers to make money by "DISHING OUT" PCNs in cases such as : (1) Where one of their spy cctv cars would park illegally causing obstruction to traffic, and DISHING OUT PCNs alleging that they were taken at a particular junction (eg. Blackhorse Lane / Forest Road) when the spycar is parked in a restricted area on Forest Road about 100 yards from the said junction, and the restricted sign found in Blackhorse Lane out of its view. (2) Where they do not produce strict evidence of the alleged offence, eg, by situating the vehicle in the clear visibility of the restrictive sign. They tend to produce a picture of the restriction, taken at a different time, in the absence of the offending vehicle. (3) Given that traffic offences are offences of strict liability, drivers are entitled to request strict evidence from the Council. But they tend to come up with all sorts of regulations arguing that they do not have to produce such strict evidence by situating the vehicle in the clear visibility of the sign. This is clearly an abuse of power. But the Council argues that those are acceptable to the 'independent' Adjudicator. Generally, drivers pay the fine at the 'discounted' rate because they do not have the time and resources to challenge a powerful council. In the bus lane case on Whipps Cross Road, E11 in this report, the bus lane placard sign is not within sight of the cctv camera. So, the Council is unable to swear as to the visibility and adequacy of the sign. When challenged, they would send a picture of the placard taken at a different time without situating its visibility and adequacy at the time of the alleged offence. They are therefore importing 'evidence' into the PCN. They appear to use this tactic to DISH OUT PCNs and make plenty of money. The law must be clarified, changed if necessary, to prevent such abuse of power by the Council. In this reported case, as far as the driver is concerned, there are no time restrictions on the placard sign and all PCNs dished out should be cancelled. Rafic Soormally
  • Score: 5

9:22am Sat 1 Mar 14

DogandDuck says...

HottRedMan wrote:
I agree it is about making money. I have no idea since it has been put there some years ago why it was 24 hour, as there was never that much traffic. It should have been Mon - Sat 7am-10am and 4pm-7pm. Also I doubt the 257 route even loses much time here to the roundabout approach. More time would be lost by the fiasco Leytonstone high Road one way system.
I have driven past here many times and witness lazy **** drivers who have NO "lane discipline" and tend to have their wheels over the white line of the bus lane or cut in before the end of it. Sorry to say, but you do not have a leg to stand on in this case, you have fallen into the trap. I do NOT feel sorry for these drivers, as they are the type that cut in others, have crap lane disclipline and very poor reading and planning of the road ahead.

BTW, the clown that sprayed over the 24 hour bus lane it does not make a difference, they are only making it WORSE for other motorists. Because if a bus lane sign does not include any timings on it, it then means the bus lane is 24 hours. So in this case where LBWF have put an additional sign saying 24 hours, they have only helped. Some other councils do not even do that where 24 hour bus lanes are in force.

Years ago this always seemed as a trap to me. I also thought the lampost CCTV camera at the Green Man roundabout near the Hollybush Hill junction was filming the bus lane, but I guess not.
I reckon LBWF painted over the "24 Hour Bus Lane" sign themselves because with it in place it makes the Bus Lane warning sign non-compliant and would give yet another reason for a safe appeal.

Without specified times it defaults to "At Any Time"

Having a sign that says"24 Hour Bus Lane" is not helpful, accurate or compliant with the strict Department for Transport rules. What 24 hour period does it refer to?

If you have sleepless nights try reading Chapter 3 and Chapter 5 - links provided above.
[quote][p][bold]HottRedMan[/bold] wrote: I agree it is about making money. I have no idea since it has been put there some years ago why it was 24 hour, as there was never that much traffic. It should have been Mon - Sat 7am-10am and 4pm-7pm. Also I doubt the 257 route even loses much time here to the roundabout approach. More time would be lost by the fiasco Leytonstone high Road one way system. I have driven past here many times and witness lazy **** drivers who have NO "lane discipline" and tend to have their wheels over the white line of the bus lane or cut in before the end of it. Sorry to say, but you do not have a leg to stand on in this case, you have fallen into the trap. I do NOT feel sorry for these drivers, as they are the type that cut in others, have crap lane disclipline and very poor reading and planning of the road ahead. BTW, the clown that sprayed over the 24 hour bus lane it does not make a difference, they are only making it WORSE for other motorists. Because if a bus lane sign does not include any timings on it, it then means the bus lane is 24 hours. So in this case where LBWF have put an additional sign saying 24 hours, they have only helped. Some other councils do not even do that where 24 hour bus lanes are in force. Years ago this always seemed as a trap to me. I also thought the lampost CCTV camera at the Green Man roundabout near the Hollybush Hill junction was filming the bus lane, but I guess not.[/p][/quote]I reckon LBWF painted over the "24 Hour Bus Lane" sign themselves because with it in place it makes the Bus Lane warning sign non-compliant and would give yet another reason for a safe appeal. Without specified times it defaults to "At Any Time" Having a sign that says"24 Hour Bus Lane" is not helpful, accurate or compliant with the strict Department for Transport rules. What 24 hour period does it refer to? If you have sleepless nights try reading Chapter 3 and Chapter 5 - links provided above. DogandDuck
  • Score: 1

9:29am Sat 1 Mar 14

DogandDuck says...

Moving the end of bus lane nearer to the roundabout by over 30m is reducing the safety of navigating the roundabout and getting into the correct lanes.

You need to be in the left hand lane to position yourself correctly for the next 3 exits on the Green Man roundabout.
Moving the end of bus lane nearer to the roundabout by over 30m is reducing the safety of navigating the roundabout and getting into the correct lanes. You need to be in the left hand lane to position yourself correctly for the next 3 exits on the Green Man roundabout. DogandDuck
  • Score: 4

11:20am Sat 1 Mar 14

HottRedMan says...

DogandDuck wrote:
Moving the end of bus lane nearer to the roundabout by over 30m is reducing the safety of navigating the roundabout and getting into the correct lanes.

You need to be in the left hand lane to position yourself correctly for the next 3 exits on the Green Man roundabout.
Completely agree with that, I think bus lanes should be down to TfL not the councils as usual they would try bend the rules to make money, like they do in places by twisting around the bus lane signs on purpose.
[quote][p][bold]DogandDuck[/bold] wrote: Moving the end of bus lane nearer to the roundabout by over 30m is reducing the safety of navigating the roundabout and getting into the correct lanes. You need to be in the left hand lane to position yourself correctly for the next 3 exits on the Green Man roundabout.[/p][/quote]Completely agree with that, I think bus lanes should be down to TfL not the councils as usual they would try bend the rules to make money, like they do in places by twisting around the bus lane signs on purpose. HottRedMan
  • Score: 3

2:26pm Sat 1 Mar 14

mdj says...

'where they have not initially realised they have committed an offence. ..'

there seem to be signs of what Private Eye calls a 'reverse ferret' here.

The statement concedes that the signage is not adequate to inform the motorist. Coupled with the blatantly false statement about ambulances needing the bus lane to access the hospital - which is in the opposite direction! - should this anonymous spokeswoman not be 'named and shamed ', perhaps by Cllr Loakes?
'where they have not initially realised they have committed an offence. ..' there seem to be signs of what Private Eye calls a 'reverse ferret' here. The statement concedes that the signage is not adequate to inform the motorist. Coupled with the blatantly false statement about ambulances needing the bus lane to access the hospital - which is in the opposite direction! - should this anonymous spokeswoman not be 'named and shamed ', perhaps by Cllr Loakes? mdj
  • Score: 3

8:02pm Sun 2 Mar 14

DogandDuck says...

DogandDuck wrote:
Moving the end of bus lane nearer to the roundabout by over 30m is reducing the safety of navigating the roundabout and getting into the correct lanes.

You need to be in the left hand lane to position yourself correctly for the next 3 exits on the Green Man roundabout.
A bit more reading has found another key point relating to this illegal bus lane

Section 17.9 of Chapter 5 Traffic Signs (Road Markings) specifically covers the issue of having the correct "set-back" between the traffic light stop line and end of bus lane to allow road users to get into the left hand lane.

There should arrow road markings (diagram 1050) after the End of Bus Lane sign.

Quote

17.9
With-flow bus lanes should normally be
stopped short of the Stop line at traffic signal
controlled junctions and the carriageway marked
with an arrow to diagram 1050 (see figure 17-1).
The purpose of this “set-back” is to ensure that full
saturation flow can be sustained throughout the
green period at traffic signals, thus minimising the
delays to other traffic. It also facilitates, and makes
safer, left turns at the junction. As a general guide,
the length of the set-back (in metres) should normally
be twice the minimum green time (in seconds),
although it may be necessary to adjust this if there
are special local site conditions or to take account of
the variations in green time in active-response UTC
systems. A with-flow bus lane should be brought up
to the Stop line at a traffic signal only if a reduction
in capacity of the junction is acceptable, if safe
provision can be made for any left-turning traffic and
if right-turning traffic can be accommodated in such
a way that it does not restrict flow in the ahead lanes
[quote][p][bold]DogandDuck[/bold] wrote: Moving the end of bus lane nearer to the roundabout by over 30m is reducing the safety of navigating the roundabout and getting into the correct lanes. You need to be in the left hand lane to position yourself correctly for the next 3 exits on the Green Man roundabout.[/p][/quote]A bit more reading has found another key point relating to this illegal bus lane Section 17.9 of Chapter 5 Traffic Signs (Road Markings) specifically covers the issue of having the correct "set-back" between the traffic light stop line and end of bus lane to allow road users to get into the left hand lane. There should arrow road markings (diagram 1050) after the End of Bus Lane sign. Quote 17.9 With-flow bus lanes should normally be stopped short of the Stop line at traffic signal controlled junctions and the carriageway marked with an arrow to diagram 1050 (see figure 17-1). The purpose of this “set-back” is to ensure that full saturation flow can be sustained throughout the green period at traffic signals, thus minimising the delays to other traffic. It also facilitates, and makes safer, left turns at the junction. As a general guide, the length of the set-back (in metres) should normally be twice the minimum green time (in seconds), although it may be necessary to adjust this if there are special local site conditions or to take account of the variations in green time in active-response UTC systems. A with-flow bus lane should be brought up to the Stop line at a traffic signal only if a reduction in capacity of the junction is acceptable, if safe provision can be made for any left-turning traffic and if right-turning traffic can be accommodated in such a way that it does not restrict flow in the ahead lanes DogandDuck
  • Score: 4

9:29pm Tue 4 Mar 14

DogandDuck says...

Waltham Forest starting to put their illegal bus lane right.

Some changes made but not all that is needed yet.

The important things relating to warning signs and safety at the end of the bus lane haven't been put right yet.
Waltham Forest starting to put their illegal bus lane right. Some changes made but not all that is needed yet. The important things relating to warning signs and safety at the end of the bus lane haven't been put right yet. DogandDuck
  • Score: 1

8:37pm Thu 6 Mar 14

DogandDuck says...

What happened to the new, related story on here entitled:-

"Council admit fault and switch off bus lane camera"

Have they withdrawn their admission?
Have the council lawyers stepped in?
Did the Guardian misrepresent the Council?
Has the Council Spokeswoman been reprimanded?

#intrigued
What happened to the new, related story on here entitled:- "Council admit fault and switch off bus lane camera" Have they withdrawn their admission? Have the council lawyers stepped in? Did the Guardian misrepresent the Council? Has the Council Spokeswoman been reprimanded? #intrigued DogandDuck
  • Score: 5

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree