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

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

On 01/08/2017 18:07, TMS320 wrote:
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.

A lot of supposition (not to say asserted and untested history) there.

The "previous business" will not have been allowed to obstruct that side
footway so as to prevent the passage of pedestrians.

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.

Council-speak for "Apply for a licence so that we can refuse the
application". The same applies - very frequently - to planning breaches
where a retrospective application is urged. It helps the council apply
the law and proves to any court eventually hearing a consequent case
that the non-compliant defendand was given every opportunity to
regularise their position (to the extent that it could have been
regularised).

Rocket science this is not.

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.

And?

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."

That's congruent with what I said.

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.

One thing is certain: they will never get a licence / permission to
obstruct that narrow footway. They *might* get one to partly obstruct
the wider one.

But it won't be free, so won't be applied for.

On 01/08/2017 15:22, 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.

No, it was foolish of you to "think" that you can win by posting facile
attempts at insult. That was your mistake.

Any chance of your actually addressing the issues raised by the case?

No... no-one thought so.

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.

--
"You, you, and you ... Panic. The rest of you, come with me."
- U.S. Marine Corp Gunnery Sgt.

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.

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

--
I failed my audition as Romeo through a misunderstanding over a stage direction. In my script it clearly said, "Enter Juliette from the rear."

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.

or have poor or non existent eyesight

On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 14:03:19 +0100, MrCheerful 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.

or have poor or non existent eyesight

What do you think white sticks and guide dogs are for?

--
Is it called a blow job because you inflate it with your mouth?

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

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

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

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.

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. ****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).

--
Sprinter Tim Montgomery is banned 2 years for doping.
Track officials began to suspect he might be juicing.
His personal best time recently broke the record held by Chuck Yeager.