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

On 31.07.2017 17:01, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
The squaw on the hippopotamus

And the hippopotamus said "Ouch!"

On 31.07.2017 21:10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
A trampoline for dickheads.

Thanks greatly for the compliment.

On Tue, 01 Aug 2017 01:11:26 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

Notice the way they've made the pavement down the side of the shop
impassable.

Notice the way that woman is about to pass it.

Notice how it is impossible for you to shut your stupid even when it's about
things you haven't foggiest about, you filthy attention whore!

--
More from Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) strange sociopathic
world:
"I like to collect all my junk mail, then stuff it in the first prepaid
envelope from some bank or other sending me more junk and write a note
telling them to stop polluting the place."
MID:

On 01/08/17 00:23, JNugent wrote:
On 31/07/2017 21:55, TMS320 wrote:
On 31/07/17 15:34, Bod wrote:

Such pettiness!

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

I wonder whether the driver stopped on the double yellows caught in
Streetview was fined.

It isn't necessary to go far to find bollards (reducing the pavement
width) that are necessary to dissuade drivers from thinking that the
pavement is somewhere for them to park.

It is lawful to stop on double yellow lines in some circumstances. Do
you have any evidence that this "stop" was unlawful?

The sentence in my post was not a question but since you decided to
answer your response should have been yes or no. We can follow on from
that if the answer is no: either the driver took a chance that it
wouldn't be noticed (making officialdom look incompetent) or officialdom
must have had good reason.

It is even lawful to stop on double reds at certain times.

According to the story, the shop owner could legally place the pump on
the pavement if a payment was made. This makes the law you hold so dear
to appear to operate under the rules of magic where something previously
deemed to be an obstruction can suddenly cease to be an obstruction.
(Obstruction being the whole gist of the froth you have put forth in
your posts.) In the physical world, in which most of us operate, we know
that if something is not an obstruction after payment, it can't have
been one before a payment.

On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 12:21:20 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 31/07/2017 21:34, Simon Jester wrote:

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 3:54:02 PM UTC+1, 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.

What a sad person you are.
Bike shop provides a free pump and you use this as a reason to air your bigotry.
GET A LIFE!

A "free pump"? Why does a "free pump" need the pavement to be blocked
for pedestrians? Have you *seen* the "free pump" in the photograph
accompanying the news story?

Tower Hamlets Council may not generally get much right, but on this
issue they are 100% justified.

Take a look at it and justify your rant against a council acting
diligently and in a public-spirited way:

https://ibb.co/jToys5

I am not aware of any rant I posted.
You turned this in to a rant against cyclists in general which I find rather sad.
In the image you provided there is a metal post with a sign on it obstructing the footway
If you go in to google street view the object obstructing the footway warns motorists of a dead end street and the bike shop is a tea room with outside seating.
You don't seem to object to that.

P.S. Don't bother claiming we were talking about the fire hydrant sign, they are usually fixed to the nearest wall.

On 01/08/2017 10:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 01/08/17 00:23, JNugent wrote:
On 31/07/2017 21:55, TMS320 wrote:
On 31/07/17 15:34, Bod wrote:

Such pettiness!

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


I wonder whether the driver stopped on the double yellows caught in
Streetview was fined.

It isn't necessary to go far to find bollards (reducing the pavement
width) that are necessary to dissuade drivers from thinking that the
pavement is somewhere for them to park.

It is lawful to stop on double yellow lines in some circumstances. Do
you have any evidence that this "stop" was unlawful?

The sentence in my post was not a question but since you decided to
answer your response should have been yes or no. We can follow on from
that if the answer is no: either the driver took a chance that it
wouldn't be noticed (making officialdom look incompetent) or officialdom
must have had good reason.

It is even lawful to stop on double reds at certain times.

According to the story, the shop owner could legally place the pump on
the pavement if a payment was made.

The story does not say that. And that is probably because it would not
be correct. Space on the footway (which many people term "the pavement")
is not for sale. The £100 is a penalty for breaking the law on obstruction.

This makes the law you hold so dear
to appear to operate under the rules of magic where something previously
deemed to be an obstruction can suddenly cease to be an obstruction.
(Obstruction being the whole gist of the froth you have put forth in
your posts.) In the physical world, in which most of us operate, we know
that if something is not an obstruction after payment, it can't have
been one before a payment.

Only in your (admittedly vivid) imagination.

He will not get permission to block the narrow pedestrian facility in
that side street even if he makes an application. He *might* get
permission to block part of the footway around the corner where it is
wider. But he'll have to make an application and pay a fee for havinbg
it considered, and that may well mean that he won't bother.

On 01/08/2017 13:10, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 12:21:20 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 31/07/2017 21:34, Simon Jester wrote:

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 3:54:02 PM UTC+1, 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.

What a sad person you are.
Bike shop provides a free pump and you use this as a reason to air your bigotry.
GET A LIFE!

A "free pump"? Why does a "free pump" need the pavement to be blocked
for pedestrians? Have you *seen* the "free pump" in the photograph
accompanying the news story?

Tower Hamlets Council may not generally get much right, but on this
issue they are 100% justified.

Take a look at it and justify your rant against a council acting
diligently and in a public-spirited way:

https://ibb.co/jToys5

I am not aware of any rant I posted.

Read your post again.

You turned this in to a rant against cyclists in general which I find rather sad.
In the image you provided there is a metal post with a sign on it obstructing the footway

Allowed - and even required - by law. Just plonking privately-owned junk
is not allowed (by law).

Try again.

If you go in to google street view the object obstructing the footway warns motorists of a dead end street and the bike shop is a tea room with outside seating.
You don't seem to object to that.

P.S. Don't bother claiming we were talking about the fire hydrant sign, they are usually fixed to the nearest wall.

I didn't notice a fire hydrant sign.

I am sorry that you are so confused.

The bicycle pump is a minor and perhaps even unimportant part of the
obstruction of the footway, most of which is caused by benches and other
assorted junk.

Cafés can sometimes get a licence to operate tables on the footway.
Retailers can sometimes get a licence to display their wares on the
footway. He hasn't got one (a licence). That's why he got a penalty.

On 01/08/2017 00:41, Rob Morley wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 15:34:03 +0100
Bod wrote:

Such pettiness!

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

Notice the way they've made the pavement down the side of the shop
impassable.

Especially for one of those ladies pushing a pram who are always the
centre of concern (and quite rightly so) when motor vehicles are
(wrongfully) parked half-on the footway.

Whilst it would be wrong to force such a person out into the roadway to
get past a parked car (and no-one can disagree with that), it's
apparently perfectly already to do it with a dirty old wooden bench and
assorted other junk including bicycles and accessories.

On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 2:43:26 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 01/08/2017 13:10, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 12:21:20 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 31/07/2017 21:34, Simon Jester wrote:

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 3:54:02 PM UTC+1, 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.

What a sad person you are.
Bike shop provides a free pump and you use this as a reason to air your bigotry.
GET A LIFE!

A "free pump"? Why does a "free pump" need the pavement to be blocked
for pedestrians? Have you *seen* the "free pump" in the photograph
accompanying the news story?

Tower Hamlets Council may not generally get much right, but on this
issue they are 100% justified.

Take a look at it and justify your rant against a council acting
diligently and in a public-spirited way:

https://ibb.co/jToys5

I am not aware of any rant I posted.

Read your post again.

You turned this in to a rant against cyclists in general which I find rather sad.
In the image you provided there is a metal post with a sign on it obstructing the footway

Allowed - and even required - by law. Just plonking privately-owned junk
is not allowed (by law).

Try again.

If you go in to google street view the object obstructing the footway warns motorists of a dead end street and the bike shop is a tea room with outside seating.
You don't seem to object to that.

P.S. Don't bother claiming we were talking about the fire hydrant sign, they are usually fixed to the nearest wall.

I didn't notice a fire hydrant sign.

I am sorry that you are so confused.

The bicycle pump is a minor and perhaps even unimportant part of the
obstruction of the footway, most of which is caused by benches and other
assorted junk.

Cafés can sometimes get a licence to operate tables on the footway.
Retailers can sometimes get a licence to display their wares on the
footway. He hasn't got one (a licence). That's why he got a penalty.

Foolish of me to think you are capable of having an adult discussion.

On 01-Aug-17 3:22 PM, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 2:43:26 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 01/08/2017 13:10, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 12:21:20 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 31/07/2017 21:34, Simon Jester wrote:

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 3:54:02 PM UTC+1, 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.

What a sad person you are.
Bike shop provides a free pump and you use this as a reason to air your bigotry.
GET A LIFE!

A "free pump"? Why does a "free pump" need the pavement to be blocked
for pedestrians? Have you *seen* the "free pump" in the photograph
accompanying the news story?

Tower Hamlets Council may not generally get much right, but on this
issue they are 100% justified.

Take a look at it and justify your rant against a council acting
diligently and in a public-spirited way:

https://ibb.co/jToys5

I am not aware of any rant I posted.

Read your post again.

You turned this in to a rant against cyclists in general which I find rather sad.
In the image you provided there is a metal post with a sign on it obstructing the footway

Allowed - and even required - by law. Just plonking privately-owned junk
is not allowed (by law).

Try again.

If you go in to google street view the object obstructing the footway warns motorists of a dead end street and the bike shop is a tea room with outside seating.
You don't seem to object to that.

P.S. Don't bother claiming we were talking about the fire hydrant sign, they are usually fixed to the nearest wall.

I didn't notice a fire hydrant sign.

I am sorry that you are so confused.

The bicycle pump is a minor and perhaps even unimportant part of the
obstruction of the footway, most of which is caused by benches and other
assorted junk.

Cafés can sometimes get a licence to operate tables on the footway.
Retailers can sometimes get a licence to display their wares on the
footway. He hasn't got one (a licence). That's why he got a penalty.

Foolish of me to think you are capable of having an adult discussion.



It is also possible that the part of the footway used by the bench is in
fact owned by the shop.

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