From: Marie on
On May 22, 6:15 am, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote:
> On 20 May, 07:00, Guy Cuthbertson <gu...(a)nothing.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Mr Hammond, who drives a Jaguar,
>
> Which says it all.
>
> Here we have a motorist MP in a motorist dominated parliament in a
> motorist dominated country turning a blind eye to all the harm and
> nuisance caused by motorists and letting them off lightly, as do the
> cops and the courts.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.


Here we go again, everything is car dominated.

Don't forgrt Doug, just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they
aren't all out to get you.


Marie
From: Brimstone on


"JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message
news:humdnevDNNB0dGrWnZ2dnUVZ7v2dnZ2d(a)pipex.net...
> ChelseaTractorMan wrote:
>> On 21 May 2010 16:08:00 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sheffield council refused them planning permission, insisting the store
>>> was in the city centre.
>>>
>>> Ikea said "Oh. Well, in that case..." and abandoned plans to build a
>>> store in Sheffield at all. So people from Sheffield have to go to
>>> Nottingham or Leeds if they want to visit Ikea.
>>
>> so should we let business build wherever they like?
>
> Absolutely not.
>
> But having a flat-ffoted policy of insisting that all retail development
> takes place in a city-centre fails to pass the test of - and I use this
> phrase very deliberately - *Wednesbury reasonableness*.

Who says it passes the test?

For those not familiar:-

"A reasoning or decision is Wednesbury unreasonable (or irrational) if it is
so unreasonable that no reasonable person acting reasonably could have made
it (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1947)
2 All ER 680). The test is a different (and stricter) test than merely
showing that the decision was unreasonable."


From: Squashme on
On 22 May, 11:42, ChelseaTractorMan <mr.c.trac...(a)hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:
> On Fri, 21 May 2010 13:57:50 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
>
> <squas...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >And obese people in shopping malls
> >are unpleasing to the eye.
>
> you think there's as requirement to be pleasing to the eye?

It certainly helps. In cars, bicycles, buildings, and humans.

> Are you into eugenics or something?
> --

Well, I think, sadly, dysgenics has been in the ascendent lately.

From: Brimstone on
"Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p4idncOwVuLUcWrWnZ2dnUVZ8mqdnZ2d(a)bt.com...
> Who says it passes the test?
>
Sorry, that should of course have been "Who says it fails the test?"



From: Doug on
On 22 May, 08:40, Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> On 22 May, 06:15, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote:> On 20 May, 07:00, Guy Cuthbertson <gu...(a)nothing.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > Mr Hammond, who drives a Jaguar,
>
> > Which says it all.
>
> > Here we have a motorist MP in a motorist dominated parliament in a
> > motorist dominated country turning a blind eye to all the harm and
> > nuisance caused by motorists and letting them off lightly, as do the
> > cops and the courts.
>
> Not half as lightly as dangerous, red light jumping, footpath riding
> cyclists, who stand a very good chance of getting away with these
> offences altogether, due to their lack of registration plates.
>
But cyclists are, of course, are very much less dangerous than
motorists and that is why they should not be subject to the same laws
as motorists.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.