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

On 04/08/17 02:39, JNugent wrote:
On 03/08/2017 22:07, TMS320 wrote:
On 03/08/17 12:32, JNugent wrote:
On 03/08/2017 11:03, TMS320 wrote:
On 03/08/17 00:13, JNugent wrote:
On 02/08/2017 21:01, TMS320 wrote:

Oh, I accept that the bureacratic mind has nothing to do with
rocket science. Rocket science is considerably less complicated.

If you don't understand administrative law (nothing necessarily
anything to be ashamed of), the best advice is: don't try to comment
on it.

Have you ever seen anything of mine that attempts to inform or explain
an issue of human manufactured law?

If most people don't understand the way of the bureaucrat, anybody
can damn well comment on it.

The bureaucrat does not make the law. He administers it.

The one that makes the law is a mortal person out of the same mould.
You may wish to separate the function but I choose not to.

I'm afraid you *have* to.

It is a word. I don't *have* to differentiate the parts.

Legislature and executive are two different things.

Yes. So what?

Having made use of legal services over the years (employment,
property, bereavement), one is always left with the feeling that the
law's primary objectives are a) a job creation scheme and b) to make
simple things difficult. And I really cannot believe that in this day
and age, with all modern identity checks and so on, it is necessary to
swear an oath to get probate; it's pure, unnecessary theatre.

What's the difficulty with it?

About swearing an oath? It might be a minor thing but one goes through a
system with a lot of unnecessary obstacles and then this joke ceremony
has to be performed...

If you have a problem with the law (as many cyclists clearly do),
your only recourse is your MP.

That depends on whether the argument is actually to do with the law or
your interpretation of it - with the bile.
There is usually a right of appeal if you disagree with a decision of
the executive.

You really don't get it. Have another look at your sentence above my reply.

On 04/08/2017 07:02, Bod wrote:
On 04/08/2017 02:18, Rob Morley wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2017 11:50:34 +0100
Bod wrote:
The problem is the typical Gestapo approach by most council workers
and the general lack of common sense that they show.

That's a mighty big tar brush you got there.

Councils in general are notorious for their incompetence and lack of
common sense.

eg; Three times over the last five of years they've altered a local
roundabout here that has cost hundreds of thousands and caused chaos on
the roads, only for them to put it back to what the original layout was.
I could post many more of their cock ups.

You're probably right about the roundabout and about cock-ups in
general, but that does not mean that people can (or should be allowed
to) just do as they like.

On 04/08/2017 12:45, TMS320 wrote:

On 04/08/17 02:39, JNugent wrote:
On 03/08/2017 22:07, TMS320 wrote:
On 03/08/17 12:32, JNugent wrote:
On 03/08/2017 11:03, TMS320 wrote:
On 03/08/17 00:13, JNugent wrote:
On 02/08/2017 21:01, TMS320 wrote:

Oh, I accept that the bureacratic mind has nothing to do with
rocket science. Rocket science is considerably less complicated.

If you don't understand administrative law (nothing necessarily
anything to be ashamed of), the best advice is: don't try to comment
on it.

Have you ever seen anything of mine that attempts to inform or explain
an issue of human manufactured law?

If most people don't understand the way of the bureaucrat, anybody
can damn well comment on it.

The bureaucrat does not make the law. He administers it.

The one that makes the law is a mortal person out of the same mould.
You may wish to separate the function but I choose not to.

I'm afraid you *have* to.

It is a word. I don't *have* to differentiate the parts.

???

Legislature and executive are two different things.

Yes. So what?

You just said that you don't fifferentiate them (ie, that you believe
them to be the same thing).

Which is at the moment? Are they (legislature / executive) the same
thing or not?

Having made use of legal services over the years (employment,
property, bereavement), one is always left with the feeling that the
law's primary objectives are a) a job creation scheme and b) to make
simple things difficult. And I really cannot believe that in this day
and age, with all modern identity checks and so on, it is necessary
to swear an oath to get probate; it's pure, unnecessary theatre.

What's the difficulty with it?

About swearing an oath? It might be a minor thing but one goes through a
system with a lot of unnecessary obstacles and then this joke ceremony
has to be performed...

It is done so that you can be prosecuted if it later transpires that you
were attempting deceit. Prosecuition, that is, for the deceit, not only
for the attempted dishonest gain.

The oath or affirmation is used in situations where the citizen is on
their honour to tell the truth to a decision-maker such as a court. It
reinforces (for a citizen of average intelligence or above) the
seriousness of the declaration he is making.

If you have a problem with the law (as many cyclists clearly do),
your only recourse is your MP.

That depends on whether the argument is actually to do with the law
or your interpretation of it - with the bile.

There is usually a right of appeal if you disagree with a decision of
the executive.

You really don't get it. Have another look at your sentence above my reply.

Au contraire - it is your good self who doesn't get the distinction to
be drawn between:

(a) access to your MP (your attempt to get the law changed to one with
which you agree), and

(b) the recourse you might have if you don't agree with a decision made
by a branch of the executive (your MP is not part of that).

On 04/08/2017 13:19, JNugent wrote:
On 04/08/2017 07:02, Bod wrote:
On 04/08/2017 02:18, Rob Morley wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2017 11:50:34 +0100
Bod wrote:
The problem is the typical Gestapo approach by most council workers
and the general lack of common sense that they show.

That's a mighty big tar brush you got there.

Councils in general are notorious for their incompetence and lack of
common sense.

eg; Three times over the last five of years they've altered a local
roundabout here that has cost hundreds of thousands and caused chaos
on the roads, only for them to put it back to what the original layout
was.
I could post many more of their cock ups.

You're probably right about the roundabout and about cock-ups in
general, but that does not mean that people can (or should be allowed
to) just do as they like.

Of course not.

On 04/08/2017 14:34, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:19:43 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 04/08/2017 07:02, Bod wrote:
On 04/08/2017 02:18, Rob Morley wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2017 11:50:34 +0100
Bod wrote:
The problem is the typical Gestapo approach by most council workers
and the general lack of common sense that they show.

That's a mighty big tar brush you got there.

Councils in general are notorious for their incompetence and lack of
common sense.

eg; Three times over the last five of years they've altered a local
roundabout here that has cost hundreds of thousands and caused chaos on
the roads, only for them to put it back to what the original layout was.
I could post many more of their cock ups.

You're probably right about the roundabout and about cock-ups in
general, but that does not mean that people can (or should be allowed
to) just do as they like.

That's what the police and actual laws are for. Petty councils should
not have any powers.

But you don't like laws and you don't want a police force. You've often
stated those things.

On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 14:34:20 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

You're probably right about the roundabout and about cock-ups in
general, but that does not mean that people can (or should be allowed
to) just do as they like.

That's what the police and actual laws are for. Petty councils should not have any powers.

Then they wouldn't be councils, idiot!

--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) sociopathic
"mathematics":
"If I say 1, then "or so", the "or so" means another 1.
If I say 5, then "or so", the "or so" means up to another 5.
Is English not your first language?"
MID:

On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 14:53:27 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

But you don't like laws and you don't want a police force. You've often
stated those things.

Indeed. But a council enforcing silly regulations is even worse.

Silly idiot! LOL

--
Rejected Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) on what he'd have done
if he had been drafted:
"I'd have been a conscientious objector, mainly because I would have taken
Hitler's side. Better yet, defect and blow up my own people."
MID:

On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 14:34:46 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

You're probably right about the roundabout and about cock-ups in
general, but that does not mean that people can (or should be allowed
to) just do as they like.

Do you enjoy living in a police state? Do you not believe in a free country?

Do you ONLY ask retarded questions, Birdbrain?

--
More from Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) strange sociopathic
mind:
"Apparently a HUMAN head can continue to see for 20 seconds after losing the
body."
MID:

On 04/08/17 13:28, JNugent wrote:
On 04/08/2017 12:45, TMS320 wrote:

On 04/08/17 02:39, JNugent wrote:
On 03/08/2017 22:07, TMS320 wrote:
On 03/08/17 12:32, JNugent wrote:
On 03/08/2017 11:03, TMS320 wrote:
On 03/08/17 00:13, JNugent wrote:
On 02/08/2017 21:01, TMS320 wrote:

Oh, I accept that the bureacratic mind has nothing to
do with rocket science. Rocket science is considerably
less complicated.

If you don't understand administrative law (nothing
necessarily anything to be ashamed of), the best advice
is: don't try to comment on it.

Have you ever seen anything of mine that attempts to inform
or explain an issue of human manufactured law?

If most people don't understand the way of the bureaucrat,
anybody can damn well comment on it.

The bureaucrat does not make the law. He administers it.

The one that makes the law is a mortal person out of the same
mould. You may wish to separate the function but I choose not
to.

I'm afraid you *have* to.

It is a word. I don't *have* to differentiate the parts.

???

What it says.

Legislature and executive are two different things.

Yes. So what?

You just said that you don't fifferentiate them (ie, that you believe
them to be the same thing).

I didn't. You missed out the word 'have'.

Which is at the moment? Are they (legislature / executive) the same
thing or not?

Having made use of legal services over the years (employment,
property, bereavement), one is always left with the feeling
that the law's primary objectives are a) a job creation scheme
and b) to make simple things difficult. And I really cannot
believe that in this day and age, with all modern identity
checks and so on, it is necessary to swear an oath to get
probate; it's pure, unnecessary theatre.

What's the difficulty with it?

About swearing an oath? It might be a minor thing but one goes
through a system with a lot of unnecessary obstacles and then this
joke ceremony has to be performed...

It is done so that you can be prosecuted if it later transpires that
you were attempting deceit. Prosecuition, that is, for the deceit,
not only for the attempted dishonest gain.

The oath or affirmation is used in situations where the citizen is on
their honour to tell the truth to a decision-maker such as a court.
It reinforces (for a citizen of average intelligence or above) the
seriousness of the declaration he is making.

It makes no difference whether the opinion comes from a citizen of above
or below average intelligence. Probate oath is not in court.

If you have a problem with the law (as many cyclists clearly
do), your only recourse is your MP.

That depends on whether the argument is actually to do with the
law or your interpretation of it - with the bile.

There is usually a right of appeal if you disagree with a
decision of the executive.

You really don't get it. Have another look at your sentence above
my reply.

Au contraire -

No, *you* really don't get it. It was about you sprinkling your
prejudices about 'cyclists'.

On 05/08/2017 09:38, TMS320 wrote:

On 04/08/17 13:28, JNugent wrote:
On 04/08/2017 12:45, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/08/17 02:39, JNugent wrote:
On 03/08/2017 22:07, TMS320 wrote:
On 03/08/17 12:32, JNugent wrote:
On 03/08/2017 11:03, TMS320 wrote:
On 03/08/17 00:13, JNugent wrote:
On 02/08/2017 21:01, TMS320 wrote:

Oh, I accept that the bureacratic mind has nothing to do with
rocket science. Rocket science is considerably
less complicated.

If you don't understand administrative law (nothing necessarily
anything to be ashamed of), the best advice is: don't try to
comment on it.

Have you ever seen anything of mine that attempts to inform
or explain an issue of human manufactured law?

If most people don't understand the way of the bureaucrat,
anybody can damn well comment on it.

The bureaucrat does not make the law. He administers it.

The one that makes the law is a mortal person out of the same
mould. You may wish to separate the function but I choose not to.

I'm afraid you *have* to.

It is a word. I don't *have* to differentiate the parts.

???

What it says.

Legislature and executive are two different things.

Yes. So what?

You just said that you don't fifferentiate them (ie, that you believe
them to be the same thing).

I didn't. You missed out the word 'have'.

You have made yourself clear at long last (it only took you about six
posts): you know that the legislature (Parliament) and the executive
(the government and the agencies of administration and enforcement) are
two different things, but you find it more convenient not to recognise
that, even though you know it to be true.

Fair enough. You got there in the end.

Which is at the moment? Are they (legislature / executive) the same
thing or not?

You have at least setted that.

Having made use of legal services over the years (employment,
property, bereavement), one is always left with the feeling that
the law's primary objectives are a) a job creation scheme
and b) to make simple things difficult. And I really cannot
believe that in this day and age, with all modern identity checks
and so on, it is necessary to swear an oath to get probate; it's
pure, unnecessary theatre.

What's the difficulty with it?

About swearing an oath? It might be a minor thing but one goes
through a system with a lot of unnecessary obstacles and then this
joke ceremony has to be performed...

It is done so that you can be prosecuted if it later transpires that
you were attempting deceit. Prosecuition, that is, for the deceit,
not only for the attempted dishonest gain.

The oath or affirmation is used in situations where the citizen is on
their honour to tell the truth to a decision-maker such as a court.
It reinforces (for a citizen of average intelligence or above) the
seriousness of the declaration he is making.

It makes no difference whether the opinion comes from a citizen of above
or below average intelligence. Probate oath is not in court.

Note the phrase "...such as...". It is possible to provide an
oath/affirmation in writing rather than in court.

If you have a problem with the law (as many cyclists clearly
do), your only recourse is your MP.

That depends on whether the argument is actually to do with the
law or your interpretation of it - with the bile.

There is usually a right of appeal if you disagree with a decision
of the executive.

You really don't get it. Have another look at your sentence above my
reply.

Au contraire -

No, *you* really don't get it. It was about you sprinkling your
prejudices about 'cyclists'.

The law on obstruction of the highway (and the easements which may, at
their lawfully-exercised discretion, be be permitted by a local
authority) is not difficult to understand. It actually has little, if
anything, to do with cycling as distinct from other user or abusers of
the highway.

The offender here is, as it happens, a retail shop which provides
services to cyclists.