Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
More stuff: now we have some bus gates on Avonvale Rd and Pilemarsh. I have been looking at fixmystreet to see if anyone complains (or applauds) the LTN features, and this amused me
https://www.fixmystreet.com/report/6729314
It shows a brand new ‘no motor vehicles sign’ hidden behind vegetation.
Why didn’t they clip the vegetation back? It can easily be challenged if the sign is obscured.
Pie to the pie to the pie to the pie?Is that like one of them turduckens, but with pastry?
I think we’ll need some kind of chart for this
ChurchillR wrote:
How useful is the fourteenth decimal place of pi? Well, the thirteenth and fourteenth digits are 7 and 9, so you could drop the fourteenth and round the thirteenth up to 8. Doing so would result in a rounding error that, when calculating a circle the size of the equator, of about 0.12 nanometres – less than the diameter of some atoms. Hardly worth the effort of drumming into any child’s head, but hopefully Pythagoras’ theorem comes in handy from time to time.Why π^π^π^π could be an integer (for all we know!)
It’s a cartastrophe!
It’s a cartastrophe!
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/trojan-tax-parking-charges-cause-9709032
Townsfolk from Clevedon and Portishead have urged North Somerset Council to avoid a “catastrophe” by ditching its plans to end free parking in the towns.The council’s executive had voted in October to end free parking in a host of locations across both towns and Nailsea. But the plans were “called in” to a council scrutiny panel by councillors Tim Snaden (Portishead North, Portishead Independent) and Luke Smith (Clevedon West, Conservative) who warned the decision had been “troubling.”
Nine people from Clevedon and Portishead spoke at the scrutiny panel meeting on November 11, warning that the charges could cause a “catastrophe” for independent shops on Clevedon ’s Hill Road and would mean that people in Portishead would have to pay to drive to the Lake Grounds.
I saw that article – people saying ‘can we have those planters everywhere to stop pavement parking’ – but I suspect that the writers meant ‘can we have those planters everywhere to stop other people pavement parking’I thought they were wanting them to stop large vehicles parking – most notably caravans that people live in. As the planters are on the road, they dont necessarily stop pavement parking, but would make it more awkward as the driver would have to turn in to the gap.
Previously, that particular corner of St George’s Park had caravans/lorries all along the park and visibility was very much reduced, but it’s not as though drivers can reach any speed along there anyway as the road is narrow and has a blind corner due to the houses anyway.
slc wrote:
It didn’t take long! My second time through and came across a delivery van driver mounting the pavement to get around the modal filter at the bottom of Beaufort Rd. He was quite apologetic but also seemed to think he had no option, even though the delivery address was right next to the filter.Just the other day, Mrs HawkinsPeter remarked that our road seemed a lot quieter without all the rat-running and there’s notably more traffic queues along Blackswarth Road (possibly also Church Road though I think that may already be saturated).
Meanwhile, here’s a positive reaction to the planters that I saw being deployed next to St George’s Park:
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/news-opinion/can-streets-anti-van-dweller-9696482
(I’ve got mixed feelings about moving on van dwellers, but they were taking over that section of the park which isn’t really fair on other residents around there)
Winifred’s Lane bollards
Winifred’s Lane bollards
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/local-news/watch-24-hours-chaos-after-9700693
Well, Lee Anderson only has
Well, Lee Anderson only has to apologise, so maybe the police should try a bit of consistency
The MP for Ashfield, who was the deputy chair of the Conservatives at the time, was found to have twice sworn at the security officer and acted in a way that “constituted bullying, and also harassment” in breach of parliament’s behaviour policy.The security officer told an investigation that Anderson had instructed him to open a door. He said when he asked to see the MP’s parliamentary pass, Anderson said: “Fuck off, everyone opens the door to me, you are the only one.”
The officer said he explained he would need to check the MP’s pass, and that Anderson replied: “Fuck you, I have a train to catch,” before walking out of the search post.
I’m now thinking that we
I’m now thinking that we should behave like Ray Shoesmith when dealing with the police:
It would also matter if there were other people within earshot, a third party not involved in the incident, and their perceived fragility to strong language.Interesting case discussed here:
Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986: The Impact of Harvey v DPP
I would argue that it’s not at all likely that anyone in the UK would be offended by the use of the word “fuck”.
This won’t involve a jury, it’ll be heard in front of a magistrate. They will likely be more matter of fact of whether the evidence meets the threshold for the offence. I’d be talking to a solicitor.That could be interesting. The swearing itself would be a matter of fact, but whether or not the driver was “likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby” is more an opinion.
Further update – they have offered me a conditional caution, which I have refused. I await to see if they take this to court.One other thing that really bothered me – as part of their evidence, they cited the fact that in the 50+ submissions that I have uploaded in recent years, four of them had swear words in them, and this was evidence that I’m a frequent offender. I had to point out that this same evidence indicated that in 90% of cases, I didn’t swear. I asked them if they had ever been in a dangerous road incident, and if so, did they swear. They admitted that they had been, and they did swear.
I know they are supposed to have a certain strategy of questioning, but that is ridiculous.
I can’t see it going to court, or if it does, I’m sure it’ll get thrown out as a complete waste of time. I can’t imagine any jury that wouldn’t just laugh at the idea that a driver was caused offense by their victim swearing.
Seems to me like they’re just trying it on to see if you’ll play nice and rollover for them.
.
.
Lord Montagu issues climate change warning at estate dinnerhttps://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24696530.lord-montagu-issues-climate-change-warning-estate-dinner/
Maybe he’s about to dump the 2025 programme of car-fests.
To be fair, if we were to shove all the cars into museums and only drive them on occasional days out, then there’d be a lot less emissions.
That looks like an excellent
That looks like an excellent way to help people’s mobility.
Thanks for sharing