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

On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 00:14:39 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 02/08/2017 13:23, soup wrote:
On 02/08/2017 11:35, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 10:32:08 +0100, soup wrote:
On 31/07/2017 16:01, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

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.
Looks pretty narrow to me.
https://postimg.org/image/l9idspecv/
See where the cars are parked, then the shops display items filling the
remaining gap.
Yes I know this is not the aspect that has the pump, but I tend to think
the pump was not why the council got nippy in the first
Oh those poor pedestrians having to walk round something.... For
****'s sake people need to stop being so damn pedantic and get on with
life.

..and people with pushchairs or wheelchairs have they to stop being "so
damn pedantic"? Hardly room to walk between those bikes and those
cars never mind if you are carrying shopping or, heaven forbid in a
wheelchair.

+1.

The footway, no matter how wide or narrow it may be, should be available
in its entirety for legitimate pedestrian uses, including the pushing of
prams and similar items.

The only part too narrow is between the pump and the lamppost. Any sensible council worker (like there any!) would just tell them to move the pump round the other side.

--
Shotgun wedding: A case of wife or death.

On 02-Aug-17 11:49 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 23:43:44 +0100, Tony Dragon
wrote:

On 02-Aug-17 10:09 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 21:43:36 +0100, Tony Dragon
wrote:

On 02-Aug-17 8:13 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 20:07:01 +0100, Tony Dragon
wrote:

On 02-Aug-17 4:25 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 16:21:53 +0100, soup

wrote:

On 02/08/2017 13:49, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 13:23:30 +0100, soup

wrote:

On 02/08/2017 11:35, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 10:32:08 +0100, soup wrote:
On 31/07/2017 16:01, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

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.
Looks pretty narrow to me.
https://postimg.org/image/l9idspecv/
See where the cars are parked, then the shops display items
filling the
remaining gap.
Yes I know this is not the aspect that has the pump, but I
tend to
think
the pump was not why the council got nippy in the first
Oh those poor pedestrians having to walk round something....
For
****'s
sake people need to stop being so damn pedantic and get on with
life.
..and people with pushchairs or wheelchairs have they to stop
being "so
damn pedantic"? Hardly room to walk between those bikes and
those
cars never mind if you are carrying shopping or, heaven forbid
in a
wheelchair.

If the wheelchair or pram can't get through where I can walk
through,
it's unfit for purpose.

Bull****, a wheelchair is a lot wider than a person walking.

Then it shouldn't be.

How can a wheelchair not be wider than the person sitting in it?

Because your arse is not as wide as your shoulders/arms.

And it should be able to traverse a kerb to go
round the obstruction.

So you want them to go in the road, don't forget they have to go down
the kerb perpendicular to it, get past the obstruction, and then
go up
the kerb in the same way.

And the wheels should be capable of this. How do they cope with
wheelie
bins?

Besides
which the pavement would be wide enough if private companies didn't
clutter it with their crap

99% of people might be interested in the bicycles. 1% of people
might
be obstructed. They lose 99 to 1.

Hardly likely that 99% of people will be interested in cycles.

It will be a hell of a lot more than the number in chairs.

Why change the entire world for them instead of
just changing their wheelchairs? Your taxes are funding the
disabled
folk.

Your not changing the entire world you are just telling people
they
can't clutter up what are essentially public areas with private
crap

The entire world has been ****ed over by the disabled. They think
they
have the right to be able to go everywhere in their chairs.

So you want them to be second class people.

If I was disabled I'd not expect every single place in the world to be
made wheelchair friendly. I'd go to the places that were.

Just as, as a vegetarian, I don't expect every restaurant to cater
for me.

****ing
ramps everywhere, extra expense for all. Parking spaces marked
disabled
everywhere (although they're handy as they're always empty for me to
use).

Can you post a picture of you using a disabled bay without a blue
badge,
please give date, time and location.

**** off grasser.

You must be really proud of this post.

Unlike you I can think straight. Why do we have 10 disabled parking
bays at a supermarket when only 1 has a disabled person in it, and the
rest are left empty?

Must be a strange supermarket, not like any I have seen.

Doesn't have to be a supermarket. There's a law that requires something
like 8% of your parking spaces to be for the disabled, yet there aren't
8% disabled.

Could you quote that law?

My last place of work had 10 spaces, and we had 1 disabled
woman, and 1 fat woman who claimed she was disabled.


So you don't know if she was disabled.

Are we expecting more invalids soon?

Who is this 'we'?

The people who make the crazy laws, do try to keep up at the back.


You used the word 'we', now you say you are making laws.


Why does the country spend millions making everything disabled friendly,
instead of thousands making the disabled able to cope with things as
they are?

Do please tell this group how many thousands it would take to help the
disabled to cope, and what you would suggest doing?

Upgrading a few wheelchairs is cheaper than modifying all the pavements.

So no answer then.


What gives the government the right to take my taxes and spend them on
things I didn't authorise? You want to help the disabled, you give
money to a charity, but taking it from me is THEFT.

What charity would be able to provide closer access to facilities that
the disabled might want to use?

Who cares? The point is money should not be taken from someone if they
don't wish it to be.


So no answer then.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 00:14:39 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 02/08/2017 13:23, soup wrote:
On 02/08/2017 11:35, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 10:32:08 +0100, soup wrote:
On 31/07/2017 16:01, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

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.
Looks pretty narrow to me.
https://postimg.org/image/l9idspecv/
See where the cars are parked, then the shops display items filling the
remaining gap.
Yes I know this is not the aspect that has the pump, but I tend to think
the pump was not why the council got nippy in the first
Oh those poor pedestrians having to walk round something.... For
****'s sake people need to stop being so damn pedantic and get on with
life.

..and people with pushchairs or wheelchairs have they to stop being "so
damn pedantic"? Hardly room to walk between those bikes and those
cars never mind if you are carrying shopping or, heaven forbid in a
wheelchair.

+1.

The footway, no matter how wide or narrow it may be, should be available
in its entirety for legitimate pedestrian uses, including the pushing of
prams and similar items.

HA! **** you!

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...-a3602366.html

--
Shotgun wedding: A case of wife or death.

the pump was not why the council got nippy in the first
Oh those poor pedestrians having to walk round something.... For
****'s sake people need to stop being so damn pedantic and get on with
life.

..and people with pushchairs or wheelchairs have they to stop being "so
damn pedantic"? Hardly room to walk between those bikes and those
cars never mind if you are carrying shopping or, heaven forbid in a
wheelchair.

+1.

The footway, no matter how wide or narrow it may be, should be available
in its entirety for legitimate pedestrian uses, including the pushing of
prams and similar items.

The only part too narrow is between the pump and the lamppost. Any
sensible council worker (like there any!) would just tell them to move
the pump round the other side.

The problem is the typical Gestapo approach by most council workers and
the general lack of common sense that they show.

On 03/08/2017 11:46, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 00:14:39 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 02/08/2017 13:23, soup wrote:
On 02/08/2017 11:35, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 10:32:08 +0100, soup wrote:
On 31/07/2017 16:01, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

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.
Looks pretty narrow to me.
https://postimg.org/image/l9idspecv/
See where the cars are parked, then the shops display items filling
the
remaining gap.
Yes I know this is not the aspect that has the pump, but I tend to
think
the pump was not why the council got nippy in the first
Oh those poor pedestrians having to walk round something.... For
****'s sake people need to stop being so damn pedantic and get on with
life.

..and people with pushchairs or wheelchairs have they to stop being "so
damn pedantic"? Hardly room to walk between those bikes and those
cars never mind if you are carrying shopping or, heaven forbid in a
wheelchair.

+1.

The footway, no matter how wide or narrow it may be, should be available
in its entirety for legitimate pedestrian uses, including the pushing of
prams and similar items.

HA! **** you!

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...-a3602366.html


I already posted that link earlier.

On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 11:51:50 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 03/08/2017 11:46, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 00:14:39 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 02/08/2017 13:23, soup wrote:
On 02/08/2017 11:35, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 10:32:08 +0100, soup wrote:
On 31/07/2017 16:01, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

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.
Looks pretty narrow to me.
https://postimg.org/image/l9idspecv/
See where the cars are parked, then the shops display items filling
the
remaining gap.
Yes I know this is not the aspect that has the pump, but I tend to
think
the pump was not why the council got nippy in the first
Oh those poor pedestrians having to walk round something.... For
****'s sake people need to stop being so damn pedantic and get on with
life.

..and people with pushchairs or wheelchairs have they to stop being "so
damn pedantic"? Hardly room to walk between those bikes and those
cars never mind if you are carrying shopping or, heaven forbid in a
wheelchair.

+1.

The footway, no matter how wide or narrow it may be, should be available
in its entirety for legitimate pedestrian uses, including the pushing of
prams and similar items.

HA! **** you!

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...-a3602366.html


I already posted that link earlier.

I was not aware of this m'lud.

--
Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off now.

On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 11:50:34 +0100, Bod wrote:


the pump was not why the council got nippy in the first
Oh those poor pedestrians having to walk round something.... For
****'s sake people need to stop being so damn pedantic and get on with
life.

..and people with pushchairs or wheelchairs have they to stop being "so
damn pedantic"? Hardly room to walk between those bikes and those
cars never mind if you are carrying shopping or, heaven forbid in a
wheelchair.

+1.

The footway, no matter how wide or narrow it may be, should be available
in its entirety for legitimate pedestrian uses, including the pushing of
prams and similar items.

The only part too narrow is between the pump and the lamppost. Any
sensible council worker (like there any!) would just tell them to move
the pump round the other side.

The problem is the typical Gestapo approach by most council workers and
the general lack of common sense that they show.

+1

--
A female news anchor who, the day after it was supposed to have snowed and didn't, turned to the weatherman and asked, "So Bob, where's that eight inches you promised me last night?"

On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 11:45:32 +0100, Tony Dragon wrote:

On 02-Aug-17 11:49 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 23:43:44 +0100, Tony Dragon
wrote:

On 02-Aug-17 10:09 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 21:43:36 +0100, Tony Dragon
wrote:

On 02-Aug-17 8:13 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 20:07:01 +0100, Tony Dragon
wrote:

On 02-Aug-17 4:25 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 16:21:53 +0100, soup

wrote:

On 02/08/2017 13:49, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 13:23:30 +0100, soup

wrote:

On 02/08/2017 11:35, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 10:32:08 +0100, soup wrote:
On 31/07/2017 16:01, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

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.
Looks pretty narrow to me.
https://postimg.org/image/l9idspecv/
See where the cars are parked, then the shops display items
filling the
remaining gap.
Yes I know this is not the aspect that has the pump, but I
tend to
think
the pump was not why the council got nippy in the first
Oh those poor pedestrians having to walk round something....
For
****'s
sake people need to stop being so damn pedantic and get on with
life.
..and people with pushchairs or wheelchairs have they to stop
being "so
damn pedantic"? Hardly room to walk between those bikes and
those
cars never mind if you are carrying shopping or, heaven forbid
in a
wheelchair.

If the wheelchair or pram can't get through where I can walk
through,
it's unfit for purpose.

Bull****, a wheelchair is a lot wider than a person walking.

Then it shouldn't be.

How can a wheelchair not be wider than the person sitting in it?

Because your arse is not as wide as your shoulders/arms.

And it should be able to traverse a kerb to go
round the obstruction.

So you want them to go in the road, don't forget they have to go down
the kerb perpendicular to it, get past the obstruction, and then
go up
the kerb in the same way.

And the wheels should be capable of this. How do they cope with
wheelie
bins?

Besides
which the pavement would be wide enough if private companies didn't
clutter it with their crap

99% of people might be interested in the bicycles. 1% of people
might
be obstructed. They lose 99 to 1.

Hardly likely that 99% of people will be interested in cycles.

It will be a hell of a lot more than the number in chairs.

Why change the entire world for them instead of
just changing their wheelchairs? Your taxes are funding the
disabled
folk.

Your not changing the entire world you are just telling people
they
can't clutter up what are essentially public areas with private
crap

The entire world has been ****ed over by the disabled. They think
they
have the right to be able to go everywhere in their chairs.

So you want them to be second class people.

If I was disabled I'd not expect every single place in the world to be
made wheelchair friendly. I'd go to the places that were.

Just as, as a vegetarian, I don't expect every restaurant to cater
for me.

****ing
ramps everywhere, extra expense for all. Parking spaces marked
disabled
everywhere (although they're handy as they're always empty for me to
use).

Can you post a picture of you using a disabled bay without a blue
badge,
please give date, time and location.

**** off grasser.

You must be really proud of this post.

Unlike you I can think straight. Why do we have 10 disabled parking
bays at a supermarket when only 1 has a disabled person in it, and the
rest are left empty?

Must be a strange supermarket, not like any I have seen.

Doesn't have to be a supermarket. There's a law that requires something
like 8% of your parking spaces to be for the disabled, yet there aren't
8% disabled.

Could you quote that law?

No, because I'm not interested in it. But I know for a fact that it exists, as my place of work was forced to obey it when they rebuilt their car park. However the management sent round en email telling us to ignore all but two of the spaces. We also had to park over the lines, since disabled bays are wider and were wasting precious space.

My last place of work had 10 spaces, and we had 1 disabled
woman, and 1 fat woman who claimed she was disabled.

So you don't know if she was disabled.

I knew her enough to know all that was wrong was she was severely obese. She could only use a 4x4 as other cars bottomed out on the suspension.

Are we expecting more invalids soon?

Who is this 'we'?

The people who make the crazy laws, do try to keep up at the back.

You used the word 'we', now you say you are making laws.

I didn't say me or I.

Why does the country spend millions making everything disabled friendly,
instead of thousands making the disabled able to cope with things as
they are?

Do please tell this group how many thousands it would take to help the
disabled to cope, and what you would suggest doing?

Upgrading a few wheelchairs is cheaper than modifying all the pavements.

So no answer then.

The answer is: "Upgrading a few wheelchairs". Is your disability blindness?

What gives the government the right to take my taxes and spend them on
things I didn't authorise? You want to help the disabled, you give
money to a charity, but taking it from me is THEFT.

What charity would be able to provide closer access to facilities that
the disabled might want to use?

Who cares? The point is money should not be taken from someone if they
don't wish it to be.

So no answer then.

You agree with mass theft do you?

--
What comes after 69?
Mouthwash.

On 03-Aug-17 12:03 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 11:45:32 +0100, Tony Dragon
wrote:

On 02-Aug-17 11:49 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 23:43:44 +0100, Tony Dragon
wrote:

On 02-Aug-17 10:09 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 21:43:36 +0100, Tony Dragon
wrote:

On 02-Aug-17 8:13 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 20:07:01 +0100, Tony Dragon
wrote:

On 02-Aug-17 4:25 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 16:21:53 +0100, soup

wrote:

On 02/08/2017 13:49, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 13:23:30 +0100, soup

wrote:

On 02/08/2017 11:35, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 10:32:08 +0100, soup wrote:
On 31/07/2017 16:01, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

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.
Looks pretty narrow to me.
https://postimg.org/image/l9idspecv/
See where the cars are parked, then the shops display items
filling the
remaining gap.
Yes I know this is not the aspect that has the pump, but I
tend to
think
the pump was not why the council got nippy in the first
Oh those poor pedestrians having to walk round something....
For
****'s
sake people need to stop being so damn pedantic and get on
with
life.
..and people with pushchairs or wheelchairs have they to stop
being "so
damn pedantic"? Hardly room to walk between those bikes and
those
cars never mind if you are carrying shopping or, heaven forbid
in a
wheelchair.

If the wheelchair or pram can't get through where I can walk
through,
it's unfit for purpose.

Bull****, a wheelchair is a lot wider than a person walking.

Then it shouldn't be.

How can a wheelchair not be wider than the person sitting in it?

Because your arse is not as wide as your shoulders/arms.

And it should be able to traverse a kerb to go
round the obstruction.

So you want them to go in the road, don't forget they have to go
down
the kerb perpendicular to it, get past the obstruction, and then
go up
the kerb in the same way.

And the wheels should be capable of this. How do they cope with
wheelie
bins?

Besides
which the pavement would be wide enough if private companies
didn't
clutter it with their crap

99% of people might be interested in the bicycles. 1% of people
might
be obstructed. They lose 99 to 1.

Hardly likely that 99% of people will be interested in cycles.

It will be a hell of a lot more than the number in chairs.

Why change the entire world for them instead of
just changing their wheelchairs? Your taxes are funding the
disabled
folk.

Your not changing the entire world you are just telling people
they
can't clutter up what are essentially public areas with private
crap

The entire world has been ****ed over by the disabled. They think
they
have the right to be able to go everywhere in their chairs.

So you want them to be second class people.

If I was disabled I'd not expect every single place in the world
to be
made wheelchair friendly. I'd go to the places that were.

Just as, as a vegetarian, I don't expect every restaurant to cater
for me.

****ing
ramps everywhere, extra expense for all. Parking spaces marked
disabled
everywhere (although they're handy as they're always empty for
me to
use).

Can you post a picture of you using a disabled bay without a blue
badge,
please give date, time and location.

**** off grasser.

You must be really proud of this post.

Unlike you I can think straight. Why do we have 10 disabled parking
bays at a supermarket when only 1 has a disabled person in it, and the
rest are left empty?

Must be a strange supermarket, not like any I have seen.

Doesn't have to be a supermarket. There's a law that requires something
like 8% of your parking spaces to be for the disabled, yet there aren't
8% disabled.

Could you quote that law?

No, because I'm not interested in it.

You must be, because you mentioned it.

But I know for a fact that it
exists, as my place of work was forced to obey it when they rebuilt
their car park.

Probably not a law then, but a condition of planning.

However the management sent round en email telling us
to ignore all but two of the spaces. We also had to park over the
lines, since disabled bays are wider and were wasting precious space.

Everybody knows that you can get a wheelchair out in the same space as a
normal parking space.


My last place of work had 10 spaces, and we had 1 disabled
woman, and 1 fat woman who claimed she was disabled.

So you don't know if she was disabled.

I knew her enough to know all that was wrong was she was severely
obese. She could only use a 4x4 as other cars bottomed out on the
suspension.


See above.

Are we expecting more invalids soon?

Who is this 'we'?

The people who make the crazy laws, do try to keep up at the back.

You used the word 'we', now you say you are making laws.

I didn't say me or I.


Perhaps you should learn the use of English.

Why does the country spend millions making everything disabled
friendly,
instead of thousands making the disabled able to cope with things as
they are?

Do please tell this group how many thousands it would take to help the
disabled to cope, and what you would suggest doing?

Upgrading a few wheelchairs is cheaper than modifying all the pavements.

So no answer then.

The answer is: "Upgrading a few wheelchairs". Is your disability
blindness?

See above.

What gives the government the right to take my taxes and spend them on
things I didn't authorise? You want to help the disabled, you give
money to a charity, but taking it from me is THEFT.

What charity would be able to provide closer access to facilities that
the disabled might want to use?

Who cares? The point is money should not be taken from someone if they
don't wish it to be.

So no answer then.

You agree with mass theft do you?


Nothing to do with the question asked.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 03/08/2017 11:57, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 11:51:50 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 03/08/2017 11:46, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 00:14:39 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 02/08/2017 13:23, soup wrote:
On 02/08/2017 11:35, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 10:32:08 +0100, soup wrote:
On 31/07/2017 16:01, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

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.
Looks pretty narrow to me.
https://postimg.org/image/l9idspecv/
See where the cars are parked, then the shops display items filling
the
remaining gap.
Yes I know this is not the aspect that has the pump, but I tend to
think
the pump was not why the council got nippy in the first
Oh those poor pedestrians having to walk round something.... For
****'s sake people need to stop being so damn pedantic and get on
with
life.

..and people with pushchairs or wheelchairs have they to stop being
"so
damn pedantic"? Hardly room to walk between those bikes and those
cars never mind if you are carrying shopping or, heaven forbid in a
wheelchair.

+1.

The footway, no matter how wide or narrow it may be, should be
available
in its entirety for legitimate pedestrian uses, including the
pushing of
prams and similar items.

HA! **** you!

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...-a3602366.html



I already posted that link earlier.

I was not aware of this m'lud.

I do not accept excuses in this court.