Council that fined girl, 5, for running lemonade stand slaps bikeshop owners with penalty for offering a free pump

Such pettiness!

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...-a3600461.html

On 31/07/2017 15:34, Bod wrote:

Such pettiness!

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...-a3600461.html

Someone ought to remind Tower Hamlets Council that London's pavements
are for the exclusive use of cyclists, with other uses (eg, children
crossing the pavement to get from their front door/gate to a parent's
car) merely tolerated and as long as they don't interfere with the
rights and convenience of cyclists.

And "get a licence for the right to trade on part of the pavement"?

Get a LICENCE?

Pay actual MONEY?

The council's got to be 'avin' a larf, ennit?

This is cyclists they're dealing with.

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 15:54:00 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 31/07/2017 15:34, Bod wrote:

Such pettiness!

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...-a3600461.html

Someone ought to remind Tower Hamlets Council that London's pavements
are for the exclusive use of cyclists, with other uses (eg, children
crossing the pavement to get from their front door/gate to a parent's
car) merely tolerated and as long as they don't interfere with the
rights and convenience of cyclists.

And "get a licence for the right to trade on part of the pavement"?

Get a LICENCE?

Pay actual MONEY?

The council's got to be 'avin' a larf, ennit?

This is cyclists they're dealing with.

The bicycle is irrelevant. Most towns have shops with a few goods outside to encourage custom. And the council are blatantly lying. You can see in the first photo in the article that it isn't a narrow pavement. We'd be better off without councils at all. Do you know what they do that's useful? Collect the bins. That's it.

--
The squaw on the hippopotamus is equal to the sons of the squaws on the other two hides!

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 15:54:00 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 31/07/2017 15:34, Bod wrote:

Such pettiness!

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...-a3600461.html

Someone ought to remind Tower Hamlets Council that London's pavements
are for the exclusive use of cyclists, with other uses (eg, children
crossing the pavement to get from their front door/gate to a parent's
car) merely tolerated and as long as they don't interfere with the
rights and convenience of cyclists.

And "get a licence for the right to trade on part of the pavement"?

Get a LICENCE?

Pay actual MONEY?

The council's got to be 'avin' a larf, ennit?

This is cyclists they're dealing with.

https://www.facebook.com/towerhamlet...type=3&theater

--
The squaw on the hippopotamus is equal to the sons of the squaws on the other two hides!

On 31/07/2017 15:54, JNugent wrote:
On 31/07/2017 15:34, Bod wrote:

Such pettiness!

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...-a3600461.html


Someone ought to remind Tower Hamlets Council that London's pavements
are for the exclusive use of cyclists, with other uses (eg, children
crossing the pavement to get from their front door/gate to a parent's
car) merely tolerated and as long as they don't interfere with the
rights and convenience of cyclists.

And "get a licence for the right to trade on part of the pavement"?

Get a LICENCE?

Pay actual MONEY?

The council's got to be 'avin' a larf, ennit?

This is cyclists they're dealing with.

I notice that the pump has had to be chained up to avoid its theft by a
cyclist.

How people safely get down the pavement beside the shop is a good
question. Looks like a compo claim in waiting.

On 31/07/2017 16:12, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 15:54:00 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 31/07/2017 15:34, Bod wrote:

Such pettiness!

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...-a3600461.html


Someone ought to remind Tower Hamlets Council that London's pavements
are for the exclusive use of cyclists, with other uses (eg, children
crossing the pavement to get from their front door/gate to a parent's
car) merely tolerated and as long as they don't interfere with the
rights and convenience of cyclists.

And "get a licence for the right to trade on part of the pavement"?

Get a LICENCE?

Pay actual MONEY?

The council's got to be 'avin' a larf, ennit?

This is cyclists they're dealing with.

https://www.facebook.com/towerhamlet...type=3&theater

Thank you for so eloquently making the council's point for them.

The scene is this:

https://ibb.co/jToys5

Carefully note the fact that both aspects of the shop (which is on a
corner) are adorned with items laid out on the footway (which I will
here call the pavement).

There are two pavements adjacent to the shop, one in either street
forming the corner. The one I have marked with a red line denoting its
width is already restricted by a lamp standard. The width available to
mothers pushing prams, etc, is therefore the space between that lamp and
the wall/window of the shop. That already-narrow passage is then further
reduced by the junk left on the pavement by the proprietors of the shop.
The effect is to reduce the availabe width to that marked by the blue
line, about 16".

The council might - just might - deign to issue a licence for the
display of goods on the pavement in the street where the pavement is
wider, but there is no way that TH Council will issue a licence for the
placing of items on the paavement in the side street, and no reason why
they should.

The shop's owners are, in common parlance, taking the ****. The £100
seems a lenient penalty in the circumstances.

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:12:58 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 15:54:00 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 31/07/2017 15:34, Bod wrote:

Such pettiness!

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...-a3600461.html

Someone ought to remind Tower Hamlets Council that London's pavements
are for the exclusive use of cyclists, with other uses (eg, children
crossing the pavement to get from their front door/gate to a parent's
car) merely tolerated and as long as they don't interfere with the
rights and convenience of cyclists.

And "get a licence for the right to trade on part of the pavement"?

Get a LICENCE?

Pay actual MONEY?

The council's got to be 'avin' a larf, ennit?

This is cyclists they're dealing with.

https://www.facebook.com/towerhamlet...type=3&theater

Oh this comment is funny.....

"You need to educate your enforcing officials and stop them targeting innocent 5 year olds to hit their monthly fines quota . 'ThinkingDogsForTheStupid.com ' can provide you with an intelligent animal that will make common sense decisions for your employees. The dogs will also exercise your officials taking them for walkies, belly rubbing, patting and get them to play fetch. Wise Up TH for once !!"

--
For this race I'm going to be using "beati dogu". Japanese for the ancient art of driving a sports car round a track faster than a greyhound. -- Richard Hammond

On 31/07/2017 16:17, MrCheerful wrote:
On 31/07/2017 15:54, JNugent wrote:
On 31/07/2017 15:34, Bod wrote:

Such pettiness!

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...-a3600461.html



Someone ought to remind Tower Hamlets Council that London's pavements
are for the exclusive use of cyclists, with other uses (eg, children
crossing the pavement to get from their front door/gate to a parent's
car) merely tolerated and as long as they don't interfere with the
rights and convenience of cyclists.

And "get a licence for the right to trade on part of the pavement"?

Get a LICENCE?

Pay actual MONEY?

The council's got to be 'avin' a larf, ennit?

This is cyclists they're dealing with.

I notice that the pump has had to be chained up to avoid its theft by a
cyclist.

How people safely get down the pavement beside the shop is a good
question. Looks like a compo claim in waiting.

Oi...

Cyclists can do as they effin' well like.

You just don't get it, dooya?

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:26:36 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 31/07/2017 16:12, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 15:54:00 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 31/07/2017 15:34, Bod wrote:

Such pettiness!

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...-a3600461.html


Someone ought to remind Tower Hamlets Council that London's pavements
are for the exclusive use of cyclists, with other uses (eg, children
crossing the pavement to get from their front door/gate to a parent's
car) merely tolerated and as long as they don't interfere with the
rights and convenience of cyclists.

And "get a licence for the right to trade on part of the pavement"?

Get a LICENCE?

Pay actual MONEY?

The council's got to be 'avin' a larf, ennit?

This is cyclists they're dealing with.

https://www.facebook.com/towerhamlet...type=3&theater

Thank you for so eloquently making the council's point for them.

The scene is this:

https://ibb.co/jToys5

Carefully note the fact that both aspects of the shop (which is on a
corner) are adorned with items laid out on the footway (which I will
here call the pavement).

There are two pavements adjacent to the shop, one in either street
forming the corner. The one I have marked with a red line denoting its
width is already restricted by a lamp standard. The width available to
mothers pushing prams, etc, is therefore the space between that lamp and
the wall/window of the shop. That already-narrow passage is then further
reduced by the junk left on the pavement by the proprietors of the shop.
The effect is to reduce the availabe width to that marked by the blue
line, about 16".

The council might - just might - deign to issue a licence for the
display of goods on the pavement in the street where the pavement is
wider, but there is no way that TH Council will issue a licence for the
placing of items on the paavement in the side street, and no reason why
they should.

The shop's owners are, in common parlance, taking the ****. The £100
seems a lenient penalty in the circumstances.

Stop being such a pedantic moaning old ****wit. Oh by the way, try measuring it to the kerb, then fine the council for the streetlamp.

--
What is the difference between a chicken and a baby?
A chicken is the result of a sitting hen while the baby is the result of a standing cock.

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:26:36 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 31/07/2017 16:12, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 15:54:00 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 31/07/2017 15:34, Bod wrote:

Such pettiness!

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...-a3600461.html


Someone ought to remind Tower Hamlets Council that London's pavements
are for the exclusive use of cyclists, with other uses (eg, children
crossing the pavement to get from their front door/gate to a parent's
car) merely tolerated and as long as they don't interfere with the
rights and convenience of cyclists.

And "get a licence for the right to trade on part of the pavement"?

Get a LICENCE?

Pay actual MONEY?

The council's got to be 'avin' a larf, ennit?

This is cyclists they're dealing with.

https://www.facebook.com/towerhamlet...type=3&theater

Thank you for so eloquently making the council's point for them.

The scene is this:

https://ibb.co/jToys5

Carefully note the fact that both aspects of the shop (which is on a
corner) are adorned with items laid out on the footway (which I will
here call the pavement).

There are two pavements adjacent to the shop, one in either street
forming the corner. The one I have marked with a red line denoting its
width is already restricted by a lamp standard. The width available to
mothers pushing prams, etc, is therefore the space between that lamp and
the wall/window of the shop. That already-narrow passage is then further
reduced by the junk left on the pavement by the proprietors of the shop.
The effect is to reduce the availabe width to that marked by the blue
line, about 16".

The council might - just might - deign to issue a licence for the
display of goods on the pavement in the street where the pavement is
wider, but there is no way that TH Council will issue a licence for the
placing of items on the paavement in the side street, and no reason why
they should.

The shop's owners are, in common parlance, taking the ****. The £100
seems a lenient penalty in the circumstances.

Utter bull**** - look at the woman who's about to walk over your so called 16 inch line. She'd get through easily. Are you obese perhaps?

--
What is the difference between a chicken and a baby?
A chicken is the result of a sitting hen while the baby is the result of a standing cock.