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

On Tue, 01 Aug 2017 14:46:54 +0100, JNugent wrote:

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.

If a pram cannot fit in the space a normal person can, the pram is unfit for purpose - a pushchair is no wider than an adult, use one of those. Most pavement users are able bodied and walking. We don't want to have to adjust everything for a small minority.

--
What’s black, white, and red all over and doesn’t fit through a revolving door?
A nun with a spear through her head.

On Tue, 01 Aug 2017 16:01:35 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

If a pram cannot fit in the space a normal person can, the pram is unfit
for purpose - a pushchair is no wider than an adult, use one of those.
Most pavement users are able bodied and walking.

You are obviously a congenital idiot, Birdbrain.

We don't want to have to adjust everything for a small minority.

All those "we" you keep hallucinating about, don't want an idiot like you
around, Birdbrain!

--
More from Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) strange sociopathic
world:
"I get told by my dentist to floss. I don't. I can't understand how to do
it. You can't get your hand inside your mouth to pull on the other end. I
also always manage to make the floss jump down and cut my gum to bits."
MID:

On 01/08/17 14:38, JNugent wrote:
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.

The previous business had chairs and tables outside. Precedent exists.
£100 would be for getting an official out of bed to put a mark on a
piece of paper.

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.

It is not my imagination that these are words from the article:

"They removed the bench and left the pump there but they said on Sunday
a council enforcement officer threatened them with another fine and told
them they would need a licence for it to remain there.

Tower Hamlets Council said Isambard's Cycles has not been fined for
having a "free foot pump" but was issued with a penalty for having
"goods on the highway.

It said it would be visiting the shop again to offer Ms Breese and Mr
James help in applying for a licence to have items on the footpath
outside their shop."

And it doesn't require much imagination to deduce that the situation has
very little to with the physical circumstances of the pump.

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.

Many things are not done because reward to faff ratio is not incentive
enough.

On 01/08/2017 15:53, Tony Dragon wrote:
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


The East End shop that I ran for many years owned half of the pavement
at the front of the shop, and our cellars reflected that, we displayed
our goods on that part. BUT the pavement was about 12 foot wide, the
pavement to the side of the shop was normal 6 foot or so and we had and
made no claim to that.

On 01-Aug-17 4:01 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 01 Aug 2017 14:46:54 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

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.

If a pram cannot fit in the space a normal person can, the pram is unfit
for purpose - a pushchair is no wider than an adult, use one of those.
Most pavement users are able bodied and walking. We don't want to have
to adjust everything for a small minority.


Unless of course you are a wheelchair user that has to use a busy road
as there is no room on the path.

I seem to recall that a cyclist excuse for using the footway is because
the road is to dangerous.

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

On Tue, 01 Aug 2017 19:29:21 +0100, Tony Dragon wrote:

On 01-Aug-17 4:01 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 01 Aug 2017 14:46:54 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

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.

If a pram cannot fit in the space a normal person can, the pram is unfit
for purpose - a pushchair is no wider than an adult, use one of those.
Most pavement users are able bodied and walking. We don't want to have
to adjust everything for a small minority.

Unless of course you are a wheelchair user that has to use a busy road
as there is no room on the path.

What percentage of people use wheelchairs? Not much at all, so to hell with them. Anyway, they should be able to go anywhere a walker can, they need better wheels and suspension, or they're unfit for purpose. Disabled folk need to stop being a burden on society and making all the surroundings get done up at a huge expense instead of just buying a better chair.

I seem to recall that a cyclist excuse for using the footway is because
the road is to dangerous.

As a cyclist I use whichever is clearer, and hop on/off the pavement to change. As a driver I detest cyclists slowing me down when they could be on the clear pavement.

--
"The Ten Commandments contain 297 words.
The Bill of Rights is stated in 463 words.
Lincoln's Gettysburg Address contains 266 words.
A recent federal directive to regulate the price of cabbage contains 26,911 words." -- Atlanta Journal

On Tue, 01 Aug 2017 19:46:12 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

FLUSH the sick sociopathic BLATHER

--
Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) sociopathic "mind" in action:
"An electric fence would be less visible, and funnier to watch the kids
touching it."
MID:

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 01 Aug 2017 19:29:21 +0100, Tony Dragon
wrote:
On 01-Aug-17 4:01 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 01 Aug 2017 14:46:54 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

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.

If a pram cannot fit in the space a normal person can, the pram is
unfit for purpose - a pushchair is no wider than an adult, use one
of those. Most pavement users are able bodied and walking. We
don't want to have to adjust everything for a small minority.

Unless of course you are a wheelchair user that has to use a busy
road as there is no room on the path.

What percentage of people use wheelchairs? Not much at all, so to
hell with them. Anyway, they should be able to go anywhere a walker
can, they need better wheels and suspension, or they're unfit for
purpose. Disabled folk need to stop being a burden on society and
making all the surroundings get done up at a huge expense instead of
just buying a better chair.
I seem to recall that a cyclist excuse for using the footway is
because the road is to dangerous.

As a cyclist I use whichever is clearer, and hop on/off the pavement
to change.

One day you just might meet me on the footpath. If you don't go back into
the gutter I WILL put you in hospital. You little piece of ****.
Has the taxman and benefit fraud people caught up with you yet? If not, they
will. You little piece of ****.


As a driver I detest cyclists slowing me down when they
could be on the clear pavement.

Utter prick.

On 01/08/17 19:29, Tony Dragon wrote:

Unless of course you are a wheelchair user that has to use a busy
road as there is no room on the path.

I expect many people look forward to the day when authorities have as
much zeal to go after the people that leave their car on the pavement as
they do with the people that put out small items that are much easier to
move out of the way.

On 01-Aug-17 8:37 PM, TMS320 wrote:
On 01/08/17 19:29, Tony Dragon wrote:

Unless of course you are a wheelchair user that has to use a busy
road as there is no room on the path.

I expect many people look forward to the day when authorities have as
much zeal to go after the people that leave their car on the pavement as
they do with the people that put out small items that are much easier to
move out of the way.

When my children were in pushchairs my wife often 'by accident' damaged
cars that were blocking her progress along the footway.

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