MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 04/02/2022 09:41, Roland Perry wrote:
>> That's normally the case here, which is why I was surprised, recently,
>> to see one get stuck behind a car which hadn't pulled far enough across
>> the pavement (pulling across at all being advised against in the Highway
>> Code) on the exit of a traffic light junction. Normally they'd just
>> whizz the Ambulance down the wrong side of the road.
>
> The thing to be very wary of is letting an emergency vehicle past at a
> red traffic light if there is a camera. There is a well known case of
> someone doing that for an unmarked police car on blues.
>

Or moving to a bus lane to let them past…

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <stj26n$1sp2$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 11:20:55 on Fri, 4 Feb
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 10:15:45 +0000
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <p54mvg9kiatkr2qock9kc74dhvoen98jpg@4ax.com>, at 23:25:45 on
>>Wed, 2 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>I have been aware of a driver being told over the radio that they have
>>>permission/instruction to ignore a banned turn or similar; possibly
>>>jocular but you never know what sort of clown might have wasted police
>>>time with a complaint about them doing so previously. AFAIAA the
>>>person giving such an instruction only has to be a "constable in
>>>uniform" but without considering (originally in 1930 or earlier) they
>>>might not be there in person.
>>
>>There's an assistant chief constable I worked with quite a lot (devising
>>policy for e-crime investigations) and while he wore a suit most of the
>
>Another unsubtle Roland humblebrag.

If you want to get things done, you have to talk to the organ grinder,
not the monkey. And pretty much all of them are relieved at the
opportunity to have a chat with someone in a civilised fashion, and not
be shouted at through a megaphone.

Assistant chief constables are exactly the right rank, a bit like
Assistant Commissioners at the Met. The big boss is far too busy, and
has employed them precisely to filter stuff from the outside world. The
people reporting to them don't have the political clout, but are useful
for making introductions.

It's all so simple and obvious, it amazes me how few people do this.

If you are really lucky, and persist in the role for long enough,
perhaps some will end up as the big boss.

The first time I got a meeting with Keir Starmer was when he was DPP,
which is just about in that middle ground (the big boss being perhaps
the Attorney General). And he's not doing too badly at the moment,
although I don't pursue that line of work any more.

>I'm surprised you haven't casually dropped into a conversation being quoted in
>this months PC Pro.

That'll be because I have no idea it's happened. I wonder which earlier
interview they'd stumbled over? Who is the publisher these days, one of
my staff went to work for Future and got quite high up that ladder.

Can't see an obvious hook for a quote here:

https://subscribe.pcpro.co.uk/currentissue (#330) although I was the CES
reporter for Computer Shopper for a few years in the late 90's.

I suppose I'm going to have to go to Tesco now and buy a copy.
--
Roland Perry

In message <stiuk2$icd$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:19:45 on Fri, 4 Feb 2022,
MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>On 04/02/2022 09:41, Roland Perry wrote:
>> That's normally the case here, which is why I was surprised, recently,
>> to see one get stuck behind a car which hadn't pulled far enough across
>> the pavement (pulling across at all being advised against in the Highway
>> Code) on the exit of a traffic light junction. Normally they'd just
>> whizz the Ambulance down the wrong side of the road.
>
>The thing to be very wary of is letting an emergency vehicle past at a
>red traffic light if there is a camera. There is a well known case of
>someone doing that for an unmarked police car on blues.

Yes, if "letting them past" involves jumping the light.
--
Roland Perry

In message <stjadl$7sb$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:41:09 on Fri, 4 Feb 2022,
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>> That's normally the case here, which is why I was surprised, recently,
>>> to see one get stuck behind a car which hadn't pulled far enough across
>>> the pavement (pulling across at all being advised against in the Highway
>>> Code) on the exit of a traffic light junction. Normally they'd just
>>> whizz the Ambulance down the wrong side of the road.
>>
>> The thing to be very wary of is letting an emergency vehicle past at a
>> red traffic light if there is a camera. There is a well known case of
>> someone doing that for an unmarked police car on blues.
>
>Or moving to a bus lane to let them past…

Shouldn't be necessary, because the Ambulance would use the bus lane.
--
Roland Perry

In message <stg6qc$48a$4@dont-email.me>, at 09:21:16 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:

>On 03/02/2022 09:01, Roland Perry wrote:

>> Unfortunately, the way the law is at the moment the council is
>>probably guilty of criminal damage/theft if it does so. The solution
>>(if they had the time and energy to abstract from more important
>>matters) is to put up a YET ANOTHER sign giving notice that unless
>>the person who erected them removes them in 7 days the council will
>>do so, and the sign owner will then have 14 days to claim it back
>>from wherever the council stored it.
>
>Sticker on the offending sign, big enough to obliterate its message.

Unfortunately, that's also criminal damage; and doesn't reduce the
clutter because the passing motorist still has to parse it, and see it's
blank.
--
Roland Perry

In message <stggr9$623$2@dont-email.me>, at 12:12:25 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 03/02/2022 11:17, MB wrote:
>> On 03/02/2022 09:21, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> Sticker on the offending sign, big enough to obliterate its message.
>>>
>> The people responsible for the sign will probably never look at it
>>after installation so unlikely to see that it has been obscured.
>
>Doesn't matter, after the fortnight dismantle the whole thing.

But that requires invoking the procedure to issue the 14-day notice.
Which is sufficiently bureaucratic it almost never happens.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <stg6qc$48a$4@dont-email.me>, at 09:21:16 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>
>> On 03/02/2022 09:01, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>>> Unfortunately, the way the law is at the moment the council is
>>> probably guilty of criminal damage/theft if it does so. The solution
>>> (if they had the time and energy to abstract from more important
>>> matters) is to put up a YET ANOTHER sign giving notice that unless
>>> the person who erected them removes them in 7 days the council will
>>> do so, and the sign owner will then have 14 days to claim it back
>>> from wherever the council stored it.
>>
>> Sticker on the offending sign, big enough to obliterate its message.
>
> Unfortunately, that's also criminal damage; and doesn't reduce the
> clutter because the passing motorist still has to parse it, and see it's
> blank.

I doubt it’s criminal damage if it’s a sticker.

https://seatons.co.uk/legal-services/criminal-law/criminal-damage-offences/

The Criminal Damage Act 1971 classifies criminal damage as:

‘A person who, without lawful excuse, destroys or damages any property
belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage any such property, or
being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or
damaged.’

This offence is wide ranging and applies to any tangible property. For
damage to be inflicted on a property however, it must be more than minimal
and create a situation where the property’s value or usefulness has been
affected in some way.

In message <hnoovg9sclve41v0t249p9km7fkpajmdkb@4ax.com>, at 23:20:22 on
Thu, 3 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 09:21:16 +0000, Graeme Wall
><rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 03/02/2022 09:01, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, the way the law is at the moment the council is probably
>>> guilty of criminal damage/theft if it does so. The solution (if they had
>>> the time and energy to abstract from more important matters) is to put
>>> up a YET ANOTHER sign giving notice that unless the person who erected
>>> them removes them in 7 days the council will do so, and the sign owner
>>> will then have 14 days to claim it back from wherever the council stored
>>> it.
>>
>>Sticker on the offending sign, big enough to obliterate its message.
>>
>If it isn't fixed in position or secured to something, other councils
>would have no difficulty in treating it as a highway obstruction and
>taking it away.

It does seems to vary from local authority to local authority.

I observe that Cambridge City Council has very few qualms removing such
things (due to their widespread absence, also fly-posted signs
advertising local events like beer festivals).

But different councils, different legal departments, and different
priorities / attitude of "so go sue me".

These two are a random example - and unlike some others which appear on
those railings without planning permission, are nothing to do with
Sainsbury's): https://goo.gl/maps/d7igpYSbYUPtXs1S7

The 25% sign is also infringing (even if it had planning permission,
ones on sprung bases like that aren't allowed, because in the general
case it's argued that in a high wind they might flap around and hit
passing pedestrians). And where is the van delivering daily to the
store's pharmacy supposed to park, if not on that handy bit of
pavement?!?

Or perhaps if you park with only two wheels on the road, straddling the
double yellow lines, the fine is reduced 50%?
<https://goo.gl/maps/vtGtRYevjaXmX8Jk7>

In other news, scrolling left gives a list of the stores-in-a-store.
Viz: Argos, LLoyds, Specsavers and Sushi Gourmet. Although the latter is
reported as having consistently failed to be staffed/open recently.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 13:52:17 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <stj26n$1sp2$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 11:20:55 on Fri, 4 Feb
>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>There's an assistant chief constable I worked with quite a lot (devising
>>>policy for e-crime investigations) and while he wore a suit most of the
>>
>>Another unsubtle Roland humblebrag.
>
>If you want to get things done, you have to talk to the organ grinder,
>not the monkey. And pretty much all of them are relieved at the

Whoosh.

>opportunity to have a chat with someone in a civilised fashion, and not
>be shouted at through a megaphone.
>
>Assistant chief constables are exactly the right rank, a bit like
>Assistant Commissioners at the Met. The big boss is far too busy, and
>has employed them precisely to filter stuff from the outside world. The
>people reporting to them don't have the political clout, but are useful
>for making introductions.
>
>It's all so simple and obvious, it amazes me how few people do this.
>
>If you are really lucky, and persist in the role for long enough,
>perhaps some will end up as the big boss.
>
>The first time I got a meeting with Keir Starmer was when he was DPP,

Now you're just taking the piss.

>That'll be because I have no idea it's happened. I wonder which earlier
>interview they'd stumbled over? Who is the publisher these days, one of
>my staff went to work for Future and got quite high up that ladder.

Its in the Retro section.

In message <stjcmo$44v$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:08 on Fri, 4 Feb 2022,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <stg6qc$48a$4@dont-email.me>, at 09:21:16 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>> On 03/02/2022 09:01, Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>>>> Unfortunately, the way the law is at the moment the council is
>>>> probably guilty of criminal damage/theft if it does so. The solution
>>>> (if they had the time and energy to abstract from more important
>>>> matters) is to put up a YET ANOTHER sign giving notice that unless
>>>> the person who erected them removes them in 7 days the council will
>>>> do so, and the sign owner will then have 14 days to claim it back
>>>> from wherever the council stored it.
>>>
>>> Sticker on the offending sign, big enough to obliterate its message.
>>
>> Unfortunately, that's also criminal damage; and doesn't reduce the
>> clutter because the passing motorist still has to parse it, and see it's
>> blank.
>
>I doubt it’s criminal damage if it’s a sticker.
>
>https://seatons.co.uk/legal-services/criminal-law/criminal-damage-offences/
>
>The Criminal Damage Act 1971 classifies criminal damage as:
>
>‘A person who, without lawful excuse, destroys or damages any property
>belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage any such property, or
>being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or
>damaged.’
>
>This offence is wide ranging and applies to any tangible property. For
>damage to be inflicted on a property however, it must be more than minimal
>and create a situation where the property’s value or usefulness has been
>affected in some way.

There's plenty of caselaw for people being prosecuted for affixing
stickers (such as "stop parking here and blocking my gate") on people's
windscreens, and even doing things which will wash off like
chalk-paintings on pavements.

And why do you think that a sign with a plain sticker obscuring it is
"as useful" as the original sign, to either the people who erected it or
the people trying to find the new housing estate?

To be lawful for the local authority to deal with these signs, the
bureaucratic process is too top heavy to be helpful, or deployed in
more than extreme cases.
--
Roland Perry

In message <stilrj$fvn$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:50:11 on Fri, 4 Feb 2022,
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 03/02/2022 23:20, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 09:21:16 +0000, Graeme Wall
>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/02/2022 09:01, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> Unfortunately, the way the law is at the moment the council is probably
>>>> guilty of criminal damage/theft if it does so. The solution (if they had
>>>> the time and energy to abstract from more important matters) is to put
>>>> up a YET ANOTHER sign giving notice that unless the person who erected
>>>> them removes them in 7 days the council will do so, and the sign owner
>>>> will then have 14 days to claim it back from wherever the council stored
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> Sticker on the offending sign, big enough to obliterate its message.
>>>
>> If it isn't fixed in position or secured to something, other councils
>> would have no difficulty in treating it as a highway obstruction and
>> taking it away.
>
>Isn't he complaining about the housing developer signs that are fixed
>to convenient poles in the landscape?

That's just one example, although perhaps the most common.

Here's one with railway connections (literally) because the lane on the
right doesn't have vehicular access across the river and Fen Line, to
get to the distribution depot which has in recent times also hosted the
expanded facility known as Papworth Sidings, home to semi-retired rakes
of coaching stock. https://goo.gl/maps/dr2DL1YqvZLtK5VB8

I'm prepared to accept the Environment Agency signs do have permission.
--
Roland Perry

In message <stgdf5$g1u$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:14:43 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:

>On 03/02/2022 09:01, Roland Perry wrote:

>> But what is a traffic engineer supposed to do when a side-road has four
>> more restrictions on it than the main road?
>
>Perhaps do not obscure two signs with the illumination for the other two?

That's a separate design issue I agree. But the amount they are obscured
depends how far away you are (and parallax issues etc).
--
Roland Perry

In message <stj158$7nd$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:03:04 on Fri, 4 Feb 2022,
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> I've seen Ambulances turn off sirens at red level crossings, but they
>>> rarely get stuck at red traffic lights.
>>
>> I've frequently seen them stuck 3-4 vehicles back from the red traffic
>> lights; as you say, they turn off the sirens while there's no opportunity
>> for them to proceed.
>
>Only last week I saw something almost opposite to that. An ambulance was
>approaching a junction with traffic lights and a pedestrian island. It was
>on blues and twos on the wrong side of the road passing a queue of stopped
>traffic at the red light. When it reached the head of the queue, instead of
>passing the wrong side of the island it nosed into the queue and switched
>to a different siren noise to get the leading offside car to pass the
>lights to let it through. It seemed odd at the time.

Perhaps they should adopt the policy of the Fire Brigade in cities like
New York and Amsterdam, where no-one is under any illusion that if they
don't clear a path for the bull-horn-blaring vehicle, they'll just get
shunted aside.
--
Roland Perry

In message <stjcrm$10d7$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:22:46 on Fri, 4 Feb
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:

>>The first time I got a meeting with Keir Starmer was when he was DPP,
>
>Now you're just taking the piss.

It's just a historical anecdote based on the work I was doing at the
time. And like certain accusations flying around this week, we were
wondering why his organisation was apparently so lax at prosecuting
perpetrators [in our case of stalking and domestic abuse].

But at least we put in the effort to go and ask him, at the time, rather
than sitting on our hands and waiting 10yrs to launch a regrettable
soundbite in the House of Commons.

One of the outcomes was organising many stakeholders to help push
through better-drafted laws, so that the CPS then had a better chance
of securing convictions.

Later, he was the Opposition spokesperson for a Bill I was very closely
monitoring, that was going through committee stages in the House of
Commons, so who better to feed suggestions to, about how the drafting
might be improved? He didn't do that very well as a "remote working"
activity, so you needed to go actually talk to him in the corridors at
Westminster.

Actually, I know the answer to "who better": Crossbench members of the
House of Lords during *their* committee stage, but lobbying 101 is a bit
off-topic here.

>>That'll be because I have no idea it's happened. I wonder which earlier
>>interview they'd stumbled over? Who is the publisher these days, one of
>>my staff went to work for Future and got quite high up that ladder.
>
>Its in the Retro section.

Yes, that's most likely. Can you confirm the issue number? What's a
one-sentence summary of the subject matter.
--
Roland Perry

In message <j639m9Flus1U1@mid.individual.net>, at 00:18:18 on Fri, 4 Feb
2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <stboeo$d20$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:51:37 on Tue, 1 Feb 2022,
>>
>>
>> So I thought I'd do an experiment. As I've described before, LWB
>> Sprinters (and -alikes) aren't very useful because in order to keep
>> under the 3.5t limit they have a severely restricted payload.
>>
>> So I counted the ratio of LWB and standard Transit/Sprinter/etc vans
>> travelling in the opposite direction on the A142 between Newmarket and
>> Ely this afternoon, as I was driving home. It surprised even me! 1:35
>>
>> So indeed they aren't very popular at all.
>
>Might be interesting to see who is using them,

The one-in-thirtyfive I saw yesterday wasn't sign written (but at least
half of the thirty-five were). From where it was emerging [I counted
vans waiting at side-roads as well as ones literally proceeding toward
me] I'd think something farming related, but that's just a guess.

>The reason he declined was that frequently small tradesmen like him
>often have to nip to Wickes ,Travis Perkins etc to pick up some sheets
>of plasterboard ,MDF or similar materials. The standard 8ft length

2.4m = 7.9ft

>of such materials isn’t easy to fit in a SWB unless they are almost
>empty or devoid of tool boxes etc

I refer the hon gent to a photo I posted a few days ago of a local hire
firm who had advertising on the back of their van proudly saying they
had "8 foot" vans available.

>whereas the LWB vans can accommodate such sheets and some other materials
>or tools relatively easy.

The only time I specified a LWB sprinter to hire was because I needed to
collect some 3m long kitchen countertops. And while inconveniently heavy
they probably didn't take me over the limit, and of course they were
occupying about 1% of the internal volume, and the internal height of
the van utterly irrelevant.

The other time I had something rather long was coving, but I managed to
just squeeze it into my estate car. Woven from the rear door, over the
rear seats and fully into the passenger seat-well.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <stjcmo$44v$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:08 on Fri, 4 Feb 2022,
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <stg6qc$48a$4@dont-email.me>, at 09:21:16 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>> On 03/02/2022 09:01, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately, the way the law is at the moment the council is
>>>>> probably guilty of criminal damage/theft if it does so. The solution
>>>>> (if they had the time and energy to abstract from more important
>>>>> matters) is to put up a YET ANOTHER sign giving notice that unless
>>>>> the person who erected them removes them in 7 days the council will
>>>>> do so, and the sign owner will then have 14 days to claim it back
>>>>> from wherever the council stored it.
>>>>
>>>> Sticker on the offending sign, big enough to obliterate its message.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, that's also criminal damage; and doesn't reduce the
>>> clutter because the passing motorist still has to parse it, and see it's
>>> blank.
>>
>> I doubt it’s criminal damage if it’s a sticker.
>>
>> https://seatons.co.uk/legal-services/criminal-law/criminal-damage-offences/
>>
>> The Criminal Damage Act 1971 classifies criminal damage as:
>>
>> ‘A person who, without lawful excuse, destroys or damages any property
>> belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage any such property, or
>> being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or
>> damaged.’
>>
>> This offence is wide ranging and applies to any tangible property. For
>> damage to be inflicted on a property however, it must be more than minimal
>> and create a situation where the property’s value or usefulness has been
>> affected in some way.
>
> There's plenty of caselaw for people being prosecuted for affixing
> stickers (such as "stop parking here and blocking my gate") on people's
> windscreens, and even doing things which will wash off like
> chalk-paintings on pavements.
>
> And why do you think that a sign with a plain sticker obscuring it is
> "as useful" as the original sign, to either the people who erected it or
> the people trying to find the new housing estate?
>
> To be lawful for the local authority to deal with these signs, the
> bureaucratic process is too top heavy to be helpful, or deployed in
> more than extreme cases.

I know of two local authorities that defaced unauthorised signs with grey
paint.

On 04/02/2022 14:27, Roland Perry wrote:
> To be lawful for the local authority to deal with these signs, the
> bureaucratic process is too top heavy to be helpful, or deployed in
> more than extreme cases.

If it is bureaucratic then then just need to ensure that full cost is
passed on to the offender as a disincentive to do it again.

All the political parties claim to be green but few remove their
election posters within the statutary period so they can be recycled.
Can't understand why they cannot cooperate and agree to remove each
others' posters for recycling, perhaps each agreeing to do a particular
area.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <stjcmo$44v$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:08 on Fri, 4 Feb 2022,
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <stg6qc$48a$4@dont-email.me>, at 09:21:16 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>> On 03/02/2022 09:01, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately, the way the law is at the moment the council is
>>>>>> probably guilty of criminal damage/theft if it does so. The solution
>>>>>> (if they had the time and energy to abstract from more important
>>>>>> matters) is to put up a YET ANOTHER sign giving notice that unless
>>>>>> the person who erected them removes them in 7 days the council will
>>>>>> do so, and the sign owner will then have 14 days to claim it back
>>>>>> from wherever the council stored it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sticker on the offending sign, big enough to obliterate its message.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, that's also criminal damage; and doesn't reduce the
>>>> clutter because the passing motorist still has to parse it, and see it's
>>>> blank.
>>>
>>> I doubt it’s criminal damage if it’s a sticker.
>>>
>>> https://seatons.co.uk/legal-services/criminal-law/criminal-damage-offences/
>>>
>>> The Criminal Damage Act 1971 classifies criminal damage as:
>>>
>>> ‘A person who, without lawful excuse, destroys or damages any property
>>> belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage any such property, or
>>> being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or
>>> damaged.’
>>>
>>> This offence is wide ranging and applies to any tangible property. For
>>> damage to be inflicted on a property however, it must be more than minimal
>>> and create a situation where the property’s value or usefulness has been
>>> affected in some way.
>>
>> There's plenty of caselaw for people being prosecuted for affixing
>> stickers (such as "stop parking here and blocking my gate") on people's
>> windscreens, and even doing things which will wash off like
>> chalk-paintings on pavements.
>>
>> And why do you think that a sign with a plain sticker obscuring it is
>> "as useful" as the original sign, to either the people who erected it or
>> the people trying to find the new housing estate?
>>
>> To be lawful for the local authority to deal with these signs, the
>> bureaucratic process is too top heavy to be helpful, or deployed in
>> more than extreme cases.
>
> I know of two local authorities that defaced unauthorised signs with grey
> paint.
>
>

Oh, and another that dealt with unauthorised event sign, eg car boot sales,
by attaching a cancelled notice.

On 04/02/2022 14:50, Roland Perry wrote:
> But at least we put in the effort to go and ask him, at the time, rather
> than sitting on our hands and waiting 10yrs to launch a regrettable
> soundbite in the House of Commons.

It has been mentioned on numerous occasions over those ten years and he
has sat on his hands and not apologised.

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 04/02/2022 14:50, Roland Perry wrote:
>> But at least we put in the effort to go and ask him, at the time, rather
>> than sitting on our hands and waiting 10yrs to launch a regrettable
>> soundbite in the House of Commons.
>
> It has been mentioned on numerous occasions over those ten years and he
> has sat on his hands and not apologised.
>

<https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-tries-to-clarify-jimmy-savile-slur-against-sir-keir-starmer-after-days-of-criticism-12531941>

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <stjadl$7sb$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:41:09 on Fri, 4 Feb 2022,
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>> That's normally the case here, which is why I was surprised, recently,
>>>> to see one get stuck behind a car which hadn't pulled far enough across
>>>> the pavement (pulling across at all being advised against in the Highway
>>>> Code) on the exit of a traffic light junction. Normally they'd just
>>>> whizz the Ambulance down the wrong side of the road.
>>>
>>> The thing to be very wary of is letting an emergency vehicle past at a
>>> red traffic light if there is a camera. There is a well known case of
>>> someone doing that for an unmarked police car on blues.
>>
>> Or moving to a bus lane to let them past…
>
> Shouldn't be necessary, because the Ambulance would use the bus lane.
>

Depends if everyone behind you and ahead of you has pulled into the bus
lane first, I suppose, and you end up being the chicane…

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 04/02/2022 15:53, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> Depends if everyone behind you and ahead of you has pulled into the bus
> lane first, I suppose, and you end up being the chicane…

I suspect many people might worry more about being fined for use of the
bus lane than for going through a red light.

On 04/02/2022 15:34, Tweed wrote:
> I know of two local authorities that defaced unauthorised signs with grey
> paint.

Round here the council spray their own signs grey when they've been put
up in advance or are temporarily inappropriate ("no entry" suspended if
the other end of a road is blocked, etc.) I assume it wipes off.

> Oh, and another that dealt with unauthorised event sign, eg car boot sales,
> by attaching a cancelled notice.

Tee hee. Was that really the authorities, or cunning vigilantes?

Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On 04/02/2022 15:34, Tweed wrote:
>> I know of two local authorities that defaced unauthorised signs with grey
>> paint.
>
> Round here the council spray their own signs grey when they've been put
> up in advance or are temporarily inappropriate ("no entry" suspended if
> the other end of a road is blocked, etc.) I assume it wipes off.
>
>> Oh, and another that dealt with unauthorised event sign, eg car boot sales,
>> by attaching a cancelled notice.
>
> Tee hee. Was that really the authorities, or cunning vigilantes?
>

It was the local council

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <j639m9Flus1U1@mid.individual.net>, at 00:18:18 on Fri, 4 Feb
> 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <stboeo$d20$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:51:37 on Tue, 1 Feb 2022,
>>>
>>>
>>> So I thought I'd do an experiment. As I've described before, LWB
>>> Sprinters (and -alikes) aren't very useful because in order to keep
>>> under the 3.5t limit they have a severely restricted payload.
>>>
>>> So I counted the ratio of LWB and standard Transit/Sprinter/etc vans
>>> travelling in the opposite direction on the A142 between Newmarket and
>>> Ely this afternoon, as I was driving home. It surprised even me! 1:35
>>>
>>> So indeed they aren't very popular at all.
>>
>> Might be interesting to see who is using them,
>
> The one-in-thirtyfive I saw yesterday wasn't sign written (but at least
> half of the thirty-five were). From where it was emerging [I counted
> vans waiting at side-roads as well as ones literally proceeding toward
> me] I'd think something farming related, but that's just a guess.
>
>> The reason he declined was that frequently small tradesmen like him
>> often have to nip to Wickes ,Travis Perkins etc to pick up some sheets
>> of plasterboard ,MDF or similar materials. The standard 8ft length
>
> 2.4m = 7.9ft
>

SWB Vivaro internal length of load area 2.537m so a gap barely enough to
fit some wellies in,

>> of such materials isn’t easy to fit in a SWB unless they are almost
>> empty or devoid of tool boxes etc
>
> I refer the hon gent to a photo I posted a few days ago of a local hire
> firm who had advertising on the back of their van proudly saying they
> had "8 foot" vans available.
>
Short time hire vans as opposed to leased ones tend not get loaded as much
with personal items or spares that are only needed rarely, I know when one
was hired in while the normal one had a service
my colleagues and I would load the bare minimum you would need for a day
as it took too long to transfer everything over and later back again, plus
such hire vans don,t have the bespoke racking system and bins to keep
tools and items in . Everything laid on the floor quickly becomes a mess
and with heavier items damage can occur if it moves.

>> whereas the LWB vans can accommodate such sheets and some other materials
>> or tools relatively easy.
>
> The only time I specified a LWB sprinter to hire was because I needed to
> collect some 3m long kitchen countertops. And while inconveniently heavy
> they probably didn't take me over the limit, and of course they were
> occupying about 1% of the internal volume, and the internal height of
> the van utterly irrelevant.
>
Copper pipe is another item frequently carried in 3m lengths , tubular
style pipe carriers on the roof rack are the tidier method of transport
such items but not all users have them .

> The other time I had something rather long was coving, but I managed to
> just squeeze it into my estate car. Woven from the rear door, over the
> rear seats and fully into the passenger seat-well.

Sun Roof can be useful on occasions though you can start to resemble one of
those vehicles that Russia supplies to people who shoot down airliners.

GH