From: Clive George on
On 29/04/2010 11:09, Brimstone wrote:

> You tell me which would be quicker and occupy less police, CPS and court
> time.
>
> Creating a space so that he could reverse into his driveway or nicking
> him and taking him to court.

"His own driveway" implies he does this quite often. Holding his hand
once won't help for the hundreds of other times he'll need to do it when
they're not there - and if they were there, their time would swiftly add
up to more than that court time you mention.

> You say he chose to be a fuckwit. What should he have done?

Asked their advice, which I'm guessing would have been "Drive in
forwards or go somewhere else". Then acted on it.

Me, I'd block the road rather than cower on the side of the road
waiting. Everybody stops, I get out of the way quickly, everybody goes
again. Better than having a partial blockage for ages.
From: Brimstone on


"Derek Geldard" <impex(a)miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7tmit5peua87i5b9fdotcb332047df517f(a)4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:49:44 +0100, "Brimstone"
> <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> He should have thought about parking his car when he bought the house.
>>> That's not unreasonable.
>>>
>>Supposing he, or his parents, moved in before zig-zags were painted?
>>
>
> Then (you could say) the law has been changed since.
>
> Whenever the law is changed there are winners and losers.
>
> Ca 2,002 the law governing the taxation of private use of company
> cars was changed and the whole basis turned upside down to our
> detriment. This despite the fact that very many companies had just
> bought new cars and were stuck with them for 4 or 5 years lest they
> realise a lot of depreciation in 1 year.
>
> My small company was in just such a position. When I protested I was
> told ...
>
> "Whenever the law is changed there are winners and losers." - Just
> your bad ...
>
And you/your company did what about it?


From: Brimstone on


"Clive George" <clive(a)xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3oadnaOONfmi_ETWnZ2dnUVZ8hudnZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk...
> On 29/04/2010 11:09, Brimstone wrote:
>
>> You tell me which would be quicker and occupy less police, CPS and court
>> time.
>>
>> Creating a space so that he could reverse into his driveway or nicking
>> him and taking him to court.
>
> "His own driveway" implies he does this quite often. Holding his hand once
> won't help for the hundreds of other times he'll need to do it when
> they're not there - and if they were there, their time would swiftly add
> up to more than that court time you mention.
>
>> You say he chose to be a fuckwit. What should he have done?
>
> Asked their advice, which I'm guessing would have been "Drive in forwards
> or go somewhere else". Then acted on it.

But where else was he supposed to go?

> Me, I'd block the road rather than cower on the side of the road waiting.
> Everybody stops, I get out of the way quickly, everybody goes again.
> Better than having a partial blockage for ages.

I agree. It seems this guy's timidity was his undoing as far as the police
were concerned.


From: Mike P on
On 29 Apr, 00:03, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Mike P" <french...(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hraea6$amd$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:15:05 +0100, Brimstone sang, in the style of Bill
> > Bailey:
>
> >> "Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVETHISjack...(a)g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>news:RLuYI+OndF2LFwVK(a)g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
> >>> In message <83r289Ffg...(a)mid.individual.net>, Adrian
> >>> <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> writes
> >>>>Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjack...(a)g3ohx.demon.co.uk> gurgled happily,
> >>>>sounding much like they were saying:
>
> >>>>> However, rather than fine him, I'm sure that there was a more
> >>>>> sensible solution to the problem.
>
> >>>>Indeed.
>
> >>>>They could have stopped, advised him of the problem, and requested him
> >>>>to move on.
>
> >>>>Oh, wait. They did. He didn't.
>
> >>> No. What they could have done was to point out to him that, if he
> >>> continued to do what he was doing, they would have no alternative but
> >>> to issue a penalty (if necessary, pointing out why this law had been
> >>> made). They then should have discussed the problem with him, and helped
> >>> him find a practical solution which didn't involve him reversing into
> >>> the road (which is probably just as dangerous). --
>
> >> Indeed, they could have stopped the oncoming traffic for him and allowed
> >> him to reverse into his driveway. A lot cheaper and more likely to make
> >> a "friend" than prosecuting him. Sadly such a common sense action seems
> >> to be beyond the wit of many in authority these days.
>
> > Why should they? What happens tomorrow when he needs to do it again, and
> > the day after that? He should read a highway code and learn about road
> > markings for a start.
>
> > They asked him to move on, he didn't, he got a fine.
>
> > Serves him right.
>
> So your solution to the problem is what exactly?

Be more obstructive, ensure the traffic stops, reverse in - preferable
to being an obstruction for what, at *least* 4 minutes if the coppers
had time to drive a mile up the road and back at an average of 30mph.
I do it regularly outside my Gran's house, no big deal, no one's ever
complained.

Mike P
From: Brimstone on


"Mike P" <stripeytabby(a)live.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ddf3da5d-dae9-40d7-8644-89eb94953cde(a)37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On 29 Apr, 00:03, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Mike P" <french...(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:hraea6$amd$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> > On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:15:05 +0100, Brimstone sang, in the style of
>> > Bill
>> > Bailey:
>>
>> >> "Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVETHISjack...(a)g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>> >> message
>> >>news:RLuYI+OndF2LFwVK(a)g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
>> >>> In message <83r289Ffg...(a)mid.individual.net>, Adrian
>> >>> <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> writes
>> >>>>Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjack...(a)g3ohx.demon.co.uk> gurgled happily,
>> >>>>sounding much like they were saying:
>>
>> >>>>> However, rather than fine him, I'm sure that there was a more
>> >>>>> sensible solution to the problem.
>>
>> >>>>Indeed.
>>
>> >>>>They could have stopped, advised him of the problem, and requested
>> >>>>him
>> >>>>to move on.
>>
>> >>>>Oh, wait. They did. He didn't.
>>
>> >>> No. What they could have done was to point out to him that, if he
>> >>> continued to do what he was doing, they would have no alternative but
>> >>> to issue a penalty (if necessary, pointing out why this law had been
>> >>> made). They then should have discussed the problem with him, and
>> >>> helped
>> >>> him find a practical solution which didn't involve him reversing into
>> >>> the road (which is probably just as dangerous). --
>>
>> >> Indeed, they could have stopped the oncoming traffic for him and
>> >> allowed
>> >> him to reverse into his driveway. A lot cheaper and more likely to
>> >> make
>> >> a "friend" than prosecuting him. Sadly such a common sense action
>> >> seems
>> >> to be beyond the wit of many in authority these days.
>>
>> > Why should they? What happens tomorrow when he needs to do it again,
>> > and
>> > the day after that? He should read a highway code and learn about road
>> > markings for a start.
>>
>> > They asked him to move on, he didn't, he got a fine.
>>
>> > Serves him right.
>>
>> So your solution to the problem is what exactly?
>
> Be more obstructive, ensure the traffic stops, reverse in - preferable
> to being an obstruction for what, at *least* 4 minutes if the coppers
> had time to drive a mile up the road and back at an average of 30mph.
> I do it regularly outside my Gran's house, no big deal, no one's ever
> complained.
>
You seem to be saying that people who are timid should be fined. Since when
has that been an offence?


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Prev: The horrors of biofuels.
Next: Start/Stop "ECO" cars