Yes the gym and Starbucks are part of the hotel complex so patrons can use the car park otherwise that wouldn't make sense but this does not apply to disabled parking. It is what is is.

Isn't this whole thread so indicative of the whole Forum.
If it's your favourite who's overmarked or does an illegal lift or parks in a Disabled Bay, then that's fine.
It's never ok to park in a Disabled bay unless you are disabled or are actively helping a disabled person right there and then.
It doesn't matter if it's the main road or private property. It doesn't matter if your suitcase is heavy or your coffee will get cold, or you're too posh too walk, or the picture was "only" in the Daily Mail.
Isn't disability enough of a disadvantage that the rest of the world can walk 5 yards further to make an accommodation? Have disabled people to ring ahead now in case a celebrity is getting a favour?
The fact that there has been no apology says it all.

Applauds.

Well it really doesn't matter what the source was . We can see it with our own eyes
Regardless if its law or not its damn bad manners to park there

Well said '

It might not be if you were given permission - maybe the hotel shouldn't have done it but if someone else says it's ok you might well accept them at their word. Yes - it's not great but I'm not going to go burn the witch without at least considering the alternatives and some of the sanctimony's a bit hard to take.

I think people are more inclined to take liberties in disabled places on private car parks because the enforcement is more likely to be lax. It is very much more a question of self respect and personal morality.

Also some celebrities 'seem' to have a higher amount of self entitlement and probably use the one of the many excuses that are used to rationalise this type of bad behaviour like a) there are too many disabled spaces b) the disabled spaces are 'always' empty c) I only parked there for a little bit d) I am running late e) the receptionist said no one ever checks the disabled bays etc.. There are rarely any excuses unless you are a self entitled A-hole.

If the hotel gave Natalie permission to use a disabled space why would they not make a simple statement supporting her?

Well having worked with disabled children all my liife I am not really bothered if my sanctimony is hard for you to take
All my life I saw the struggles of parents with disabled children , the day to day difficulties , the sheer hard work they face each day
No one needs to make life harder for them and park in the spaces that are there for thier use to attempt to make life less stressful

Not at all buying that a hotel gives permission fot it but even if they did then its still wrong . All wrong

Because then they look like the bad guys?

I really don't buy that tbf.

Well, hopefully having been caught out in print, she will not repeat her crime and we can all draw a line under the whole sorry affair.

It is up to the management of the hotel (or owner of car park) to decide whether they want to let their guests use the parking bays or leave them unused all day.

Even then she would not have broken the law, it would be up to the hotel (or more likely the company that manages the car park for them) to take civil action if they felt they had a case and it would not cost more to go to court then they might get in compensation.

How would a hotel know if its not needed and how would they know its going to stay empty ? I beieve the car park is used by the public and not locked ?


But regardless of all that is down to morals and manners to leave those spaces free for those who truly need them

I doubt that the management would allow a disabled parking space to be used by a nonDisabled person for 3 hours.

Can you distinguish between stopping briefly to unload and parking for a long period from a photograph?

Excuses excuses excuses . Its wrong for a minute , for tthree minutes for an hour . All wrong
I like Natalie , love her dancing but will not even look for excuses for this . None

This sentence sums up exactly how I feel about anyone who has no right to park in a disabled bay, it shows a lack of morals and manners.

I can understand why people are maybe doubtful of a Daily Mail article but if there is a genuine reason for Natalie parking there then you would think she would put something on her twitter account (I presume she hasn't?)

Maybe the Daily Mail didn't ask them for one.

I'm really not excusing her for this - just simply intimating that sometimes there are reasons for why things are as they are - and that it remains a possibility that she had been permitted to park there.

The DM clearly has its agenda in making a story out of this - as it does with more or less anything to do with Strictly these days. The fact that they had sent someone there two days on the trot to spy on her, to photograph her and comment on her clothing, her hair, the luggage she was carrying and her car speaks volumes and frankly, although she should really not be parking in a disabled bay, the day that the Daily Mail thinks it can take the moral high ground on advocacy for the disabled - or indeed anything for that matter - I will eat my hat.

They're probably just grumpy they can't pin a Strictly curse on anyone this year.

It is more likely to be a specific planning condition of the hotel/retail park to provide certain amount disabled spaces and also to have an appropriate enforcement/management plan for the car park. If the owners/lease holders were to allow the disabled spaces to be abused and there were complaints they potentially could face action by the council.

Ok two points here then I'm done.

One - is that for what I've seen it's not uncommon practice for hotels to let you park in front of them briefly to drop off bags this one's set up is unusual in that the place in front of the hotel is probably the disabled bays.

Two - no I don't have extensive experience in dealing with people with disablities but my husband's knees disolate sometimes randomly. Not the same thing right? Yes I'd agree but the strange thing is that he is a keen runner and has run the London marathan and a lot of half marathons and 20k runs to the extent where sometimes I feel like a bit of a running widow. Not relevant right?

I don't know but you see there is possibly a very good reason to extend Nat the benefit of the doubt and ironically for all the if it were Ola diatribe it would also extend to Ola too. That is that we do know for a fact that Nat has previously been seriously injured - this could be moonshine but hubbie's example illustrates it might not be. You see the human body can be strange - hubbie's knees have never dislocated whilst he's done an official run - weird right? The point I'm making is that just because Nat's back has healed enough for her to dance again doesn't automatically mean it's healed enough for her to lug heavy bags across a car park or maybe because it's her career she considers dancing an acceptable risk but not bag lugging. Also do we know what strained it so badly in the first place - might be relevant here. It may also explain why she doesn't want to comment in that it might make the management of SCD doubt her fitness to carry on working.

My thoughts exactly - I think they were 'investigating' her in an attempt to do so.

disappointing she doesn't have a disability so shouldn't park there, pure laziness since she cant be bothered walking