Re: Cyclists keep prices down

[Jonathan]

On 2012-11-07 13:02:10 +0000, Judith said:

> I asked a question in ULM as to what people could legally do in certain
> circumstances The majority of the responses were pure trivia - see below.
> Mike
> Bristow replied:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> What can people legally do in those circumstances?
>
> Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, section 110, is the
> relevant law:
>
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/15/part/3/crossheading/powers-of-arrest
>
>
> It is reasonably clear.
>
> ...
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> To which I replied:
>
> ==================================================================
> Many thanks for the first sensible response; I thought I had strayed in to
> the
> kindergarten.
> ==================================================================
>
>
> This of course was rejected with: "This post is abusive or hurtful to
> others".
>
> Quite right too - we must not upset the unnamed little flowers playing in
> the
> sandpit must we.
>
> The phrase "If the cap fits, wear it" springs to mind for the unnamed
> little
> flowers.
>
> Here are some of the responses earlier in the thread than Mike's post.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I've no idea what was behind the story posted, but one could just as
> easily say he was blaming the woman for being in his way because he's a
> man, and don't we all know that men think they have the right of way
> everywhere?
>
> Well it's true we do tend to be better drivers; but to be fair most of us
> have worked out by now that it's better to give way to a lady as it's far
> safer to have them in front of you than behind you.
>
> I really feel the baby should get out and walk when negotiating narrow
> or busy sections of the pavement.
>
> Only if they can hold the pram above their heads to keep it out of
> everyone else's way.
>
> It must be a strong baby who can not only hold up a pram but who can
> hold up traffic, too.
>
> Bloody hell, these babies seem to want things both ways nowadays.
>
> Just wait till a baby becomes Chief Whip and demands to have the gates
> of Downing St opened for his pram.
>
> There is a risk that they will take up more pavement space if they have
> to walk beside the pram: and there may also be a problem if their legs
> are too weak.
>
> "PRAM USERS DISMOUNT"
>
> Perhaps the baby was so cute that it distracted his attention. He
> could sue for an attractive nuisance.
>
> Defend themselves by smacking the cheeky sod as hard as they could in the
> face (assuming they believed thay they were in immanent danger of attack).
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> So many thanks for the first sensible response Mike.
>
> And I am so sorry for upsetting the moderator concerned.

It may be that some users of ulm are a bit bored with anti-cyclist news
stories thinly disguised as legal questions. It may be that our less
than whelmed response annoys you. But in the moderated group you don't
have the option of insulting a small, identifiable group of posters by
describing them as resembling children in a kindergarten. Not sure
what you are complaining about.

--

Percy Picacity