Please describe your concerns with this comment. If you simply wish to respond to the comment please use the Comment Box on the story itself:
Sparty. You invariable take the contentious 'devil's advocate' stance regardless, because, IMO, you like to have an argument, and are capable of going on and on til you have the last word, then claim you've 'won'... some might say this clinches your gender, at least, but heaven forfend, not I... This time, your quite frankly ridiculous stance (as many have already noted here) is a rambling diatribe about 'able bodied people's right' versus 'disabled people's rights' and how isn't it OK for an able bodied person to use a disabled space as it's free (?) Well, no, it isn't, legally, morally or any other way you paint it, Sparty, and though you will continue to argue black is white and come up with a variety of arguments that deflect from your original inane points, it still doesn't make you - or Mr Inglis - right. I recall that when first tackled on this, Mr Inglis showed pretty much total disregard for the nature of what he'd done, and it wasn't til there was a considerable negative reaction to his thoughtless deed that he decided he should show some conscience about it. For the record I would never, ever park in a disabled space if it was 'free' as I, like many, have a conscience, and do not know if a disabled person will need it - neither did Mr Inglis. The outcry is disproportionate, perhaps, but his initial reaction was disappointing unapologetic, and on the positive side, the stance you have taken regarding this shows you up as the (dare I say it) demi troll I think you truly are. ...perhaps the imminent dismissal of the HSSD Board through their incompetence is just a little too close to home, so you feel driven to defend their every move?