Prev: Restaurant damaged by car.
Next: Coalition government: Transport Secretary Philip Hammond ends Labour's 'war on motorists'
From: Marie on 22 May 2010 07:49 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 22 May 2010 10:37 "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 22 May 2010 10:46 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 22 May 2010 10:48 "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 22 May 2010 10:56
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. |