On 4 Feb 2022 15:34, MB wrote:
> 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.
>

Window posters are up to the house owner. I would expect those using
stakes and boards (aka "garden posters") to collect them all up for
reuse, especially as it keeps the costs down for the next election.
Mind you,those parties funded by the Russians and other large
donors may not need to be so careful.

On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 15:25:29 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <576rvgppo99pmbve3crjlfapf4edk41cn9@4ax.com>, at 21:30:48 on
>Fri, 4 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 13:54:02 +0000, 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.
>>>
>>Not if you have what exists along the Old Kent Road or elsewhere
>>around Greater London where there are 24/7 bus lanes (hours altered
>>with COVID) which are still interrupted by parking spaces. There is a
>>similar problem associated with cycle lanes (often devoid of cyclists)
>>now barriered off with posts.
>
>If the ambulance is only needing to pass one or two cars, that analysis
>is broken.
>
It can't pass cars if the adjacent lanes 2+ are blocked solid by the
same incident that the ambulance is travelling to. There are rather
more than one or two parked vehicles in the way at night. A similar
effect was achieved in Harrow with barriered-off cycle lanes (where
cyclists were rarely seen) but those roads have been fully restored to
their previous unobstructed state.

On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 15:26:14 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <1u6rvg9ebpo1e7jfujdd85o0a265rorti6@4ax.com>, at 21:36:08 on
>Fri, 4 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 14:34:14 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>An idea nicked from Dutch tram-drivers?
>
>Don't think so, they seem fairly timid. German tram drivers are a bit
>more aggressive.
>
ISTR a previous poster alleging that Amsterdam tram-drivers weren't
too fussy about scraping the paint on their bumpers. Maybe too much
fibre-glass on the front of newer trams?

On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 12:51:17 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 05/02/2022 11:42, Recliner wrote:
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 04/02/2022 21:39, GB wrote:
>>>>> On 04/02/2022 20:06, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed, this has been fact checked multiple times, and the allegation is
>>>>>> baseless. Johnson was just trying to divert attention away
>>>>>
>>>>> A lot of the PMQ questions are foreseeable, and the answers are
>>>>> scripted. Do you think this was written for Boris, or he ad-libbed?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ad libbed, if you notice he tried to keep rolling out his dodgy
>>>> statistics rather than answer the question and when called out on it,
>>>> lost his temper.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Lieing to or deliberately misleading the Commons is supposed to lead to an
>>> automatic resignation by ministers, including the PM. He does it
>>> regularly, but refuses to admit he's done it, and there seems to be no
>>> 'Hansard Fact Checker' to determine when ministers have lied.
>>>
>>
>> He has built his whole career on lies and has got away with it. Why
>> should he change now?
>>
>
>I'm saying that the Hansard reporting system should automatically
>fact-check ministerial statements, or at least offer to do so on request.
>That way, Johnson's frequent lies would have been officially flagged, with
>him being forced to retract and apologise, or resign. Everyone apart from
>Mad Nad knows he's lied to parliament, but no MP is allowed to accuse him
>of lying.
>
Hansard's job is merely to minute what was said in Parliament without
colouring it with opinion. Calling out terminological inexactitudes is
for others to do otherwise Hansard becomes more than just a simple
record.

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 12:51:17 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 05/02/2022 11:42, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 04/02/2022 21:39, GB wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/02/2022 20:06, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed, this has been fact checked multiple times, and the allegation is
>>>>>>> baseless. Johnson was just trying to divert attention away
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A lot of the PMQ questions are foreseeable, and the answers are
>>>>>> scripted. Do you think this was written for Boris, or he ad-libbed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ad libbed, if you notice he tried to keep rolling out his dodgy
>>>>> statistics rather than answer the question and when called out on it,
>>>>> lost his temper.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lieing to or deliberately misleading the Commons is supposed to lead to an
>>>> automatic resignation by ministers, including the PM. He does it
>>>> regularly, but refuses to admit he's done it, and there seems to be no
>>>> 'Hansard Fact Checker' to determine when ministers have lied.
>>>>
>>>
>>> He has built his whole career on lies and has got away with it. Why
>>> should he change now?
>>>
>>
>> I'm saying that the Hansard reporting system should automatically
>> fact-check ministerial statements, or at least offer to do so on request.
>> That way, Johnson's frequent lies would have been officially flagged, with
>> him being forced to retract and apologise, or resign. Everyone apart from
>> Mad Nad knows he's lied to parliament, but no MP is allowed to accuse him
>> of lying.
>>
> Hansard's job is merely to minute what was said in Parliament without
> colouring it with opinion. Calling out terminological inexactitudes is
> for others to do otherwise Hansard becomes more than just a simple
> record.
>

Perhaps the fact checking could be done on request by the HoC library?

On 05/02/2022 17:45, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
> Window posters are up to the house owner. I would expect those using
> stakes and boards (aka "garden posters") to collect them all up for
> reuse, especially as it keeps the costs down for the next election.
> Mind you,those parties funded by the Russians and other large
> donors may not need to be so careful.

I was referring to the one put up in public places, usually attached to
street furniture.

Some parties are good at removing after the election but many are just
left there. I did read someone from one of the road contractors who
wrote that they remove and bill the party after a time.

On 05/02/2022 14:16, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <stjlqv$51g$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:55:59 on Fri, 4 Feb 2022,
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 04/02/2022 14:27, Roland Perry 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-offe
>>>> nces/
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>
>> I didn't say it was a plain sign. A sticker giving 14 days notice.
>
> The number of words you need you use won't fit on a sign that small.
>

It will in 12 point.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 12:22:24 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 11:58:43 +0000
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <stlndt$1j15$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 11:35:25 on Sat, 5 Feb
>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>> On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 14:50:20 +0000
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> Yeah yeah, name dropping had nothing to do with it. Sure. You're so
>>>> transparent.
>>>
>>> If I was into name-dropping, you'd see it much more often.
>>
>> Define often.
>>
>>>>> one-sentence summary of the subject matter.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not your secretary. Go buy a copy.
>>>
>>> Oh look, you could have typed that one sentence in just as little time
>>> as your unhelpful reply.
>>
>> Yes I could have. After I'd gone and dug out the magazine from a pile upstairs
>> and found the page again. Can't be arsed.
>
> If you did, you might notice that a David Perry was quoted on page 125,
> but I can't see any quotes from Roland Perry.
> Meanwhile, the April issue has just been delivered (yes, on 5 February!).
>

PC Pro is available on the Readly App so for those who have access to that
having a glance at the publication without having to fork out on an issue
or shuffle through the shelves in a newsagent to just read a couple of
lines is one of the advantages of using it.
Roland is quoted in the February edition ( issue 128) but its hardly worth
the time and effort to go out and find a copy just for that, no disrespect
to Roland intended .
Took me awhile to find his name on page 125 section 11 under a heading “
learning to code”.

GH

In message <stmsm5$712$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:11:17 on Sat, 5 Feb 2022,
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 05/02/2022 14:16, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <stjlqv$51g$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:55:59 on Fri, 4 Feb
>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 04/02/2022 14:27, Roland Perry 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-offe
>>>>> nces/
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>is  "as useful" as the original sign, to either the people who
>>>>erected it or  the people trying to find the new housing estate?
>>>
>>> I didn't say it was a plain sign. A sticker giving 14 days notice.

>> The number of words you need you use won't fit on a sign that small.
>
>It will in 12 point.

Have you actually seen such a notice in the flesh (I have). Like the
ones announcing a property has applied for planning permission it's page
of A4.
--
Roland Perry

In message <WIoSx9zVdp$hFAFu@perry.uk>, at 15:27:17 on Sat, 5 Feb 2022,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:

>>If you did, you might notice that a David Perry was quoted on page
>>125, but I can't see any quotes from Roland Perry.
>
>I'm going to go buy a copy later. It's not at all unlikely I might be
>quoted, as there's a huge amount of interest at the moment in retro
>computing. And I'm quoted extensively in the recent Raspberry Pi book
>on 1980's home computing.

Turns out that the issue in the shops is 329, March. And all that has is
a somewhat oddly captioned "The Amstrad CPC's Z80 processor was used by
TI for its calculators" stock photo of CPC 464 on page 124.
--
Roland Perry

In message <j68gdoFlv8hU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:43:52 on Sat, 5 Feb
2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 12:22:24 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 11:58:43 +0000
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <stlndt$1j15$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 11:35:25 on Sat, 5 Feb
>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>> On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 14:50:20 +0000
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah yeah, name dropping had nothing to do with it. Sure. You're so
>>>>> transparent.
>>>>
>>>> If I was into name-dropping, you'd see it much more often.
>>>
>>> Define often.
>>>
>>>>>> one-sentence summary of the subject matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not your secretary. Go buy a copy.
>>>>
>>>> Oh look, you could have typed that one sentence in just as little time
>>>> as your unhelpful reply.
>>>
>>> Yes I could have. After I'd gone and dug out the magazine from a
>>>pile upstairs
>>> and found the page again. Can't be arsed.
>>
>> If you did, you might notice that a David Perry was quoted on page 125,
>> but I can't see any quotes from Roland Perry.
>> Meanwhile, the April issue has just been delivered (yes, on 5 February!).
>
>PC Pro is available on the Readly App so for those who have access to that
>having a glance at the publication without having to fork out on an issue
>or shuffle through the shelves in a newsagent to just read a couple of
>lines is one of the advantages of using it.

>Roland is quoted in the February edition ( issue 128)

328 probably.

>but its hardly worth the time and effort to go out and find a copy just
>for that, no disrespect to Roland intended .

And at £5.99 an issue, I tend to agree. I know Tim Danton has to make
living, but that's a pretty expensive magazine.

>Took me awhile to find his name

It doesn't have a "search" facility?

>on page 125 section 11 under a heading “ learning to code”.

Is that some anecdotes from people who learnt their craft on 464's and
went on to a successful career?
--
Roland Perry

On 06/02/2022 06:19, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <stmsm5$712$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:11:17 on Sat, 5 Feb 2022,
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 05/02/2022 14:16, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <stjlqv$51g$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:55:59 on Fri, 4 Feb
>>> 2022,  Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> On 04/02/2022 14:27, Roland Perry 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-offe
>>>>>>
>>>>>> nces/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>> is  "as useful" as the original sign, to either the people who
>>>>> erected it or  the people trying to find the new housing estate?
>>>>
>>>> I didn't say it was a plain sign. A sticker giving 14 days notice.
>
>>>  The number of words you need you use won't fit on a sign that small.
>>
>> It will in 12 point.
>
> Have you actually seen such a notice in the flesh (I have). Like the
> ones announcing a property has applied for planning permission it's page
> of A4.

That is a different document. And yes I have seen those, admittedly not
tattooed on flesh but certainly plastic wrapped paper.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <j68gdoFlv8hU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:43:52 on Sat, 5 Feb
> 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 12:22:24 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 11:58:43 +0000
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <stlndt$1j15$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 11:35:25 on Sat, 5 Feb
>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 14:50:20 +0000
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah yeah, name dropping had nothing to do with it. Sure. You're so
>>>>>> transparent.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I was into name-dropping, you'd see it much more often.
>>>>
>>>> Define often.
>>>>
>>>>>>> one-sentence summary of the subject matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not your secretary. Go buy a copy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh look, you could have typed that one sentence in just as little time
>>>>> as your unhelpful reply.
>>>>
>>>> Yes I could have. After I'd gone and dug out the magazine from a
>>>> pile upstairs
>>>> and found the page again. Can't be arsed.
>>>
>>> If you did, you might notice that a David Perry was quoted on page 125,
>>> but I can't see any quotes from Roland Perry.
>>> Meanwhile, the April issue has just been delivered (yes, on 5 February!).
>>
>> PC Pro is available on the Readly App so for those who have access to that
>> having a glance at the publication without having to fork out on an issue
>> or shuffle through the shelves in a newsagent to just read a couple of
>> lines is one of the advantages of using it.
>
>> Roland is quoted in the February edition ( issue 128)
>
> 328 probably.
>
>> but its hardly worth the time and effort to go out and find a copy just
>> for that, no disrespect to Roland intended .
>
> And at £5.99 an issue, I tend to agree. I know Tim Danton has to make
> living, but that's a pretty expensive magazine.
>
>> Took me awhile to find his name
>
> It doesn't have a "search" facility?
>
>> on page 125 section 11 under a heading “ learning to code”.
>
> Is that some anecdotes from people who learnt their craft on 464's and
> went on to a successful career?

It’s a magazine that has lost its way. Most articles seem to be written by
their contributors with the mindset of what an earth are we going to come
up with this month. Worth a quick flick through as part of a Readly
subscription, but certainly not worth paying for in its own right. I’m
surprised it’s still going, but may be surviving on the basis that there
isn’t much competition these days.

In message <stnu6n$h9k$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:43:19 on Sun, 6 Feb 2022,
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 06/02/2022 06:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <stmsm5$712$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:11:17 on Sat, 5 Feb
>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 05/02/2022 14:16, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <stjlqv$51g$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:55:59 on Fri, 4 Feb
>>>>2022,  Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> On 04/02/2022 14:27, Roland Perry 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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (if they had  the time and energy to abstract from more important
>>>>>>>>>> matters) is to put  up a YET ANOTHER sign giving notice that
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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-offe
>>>>>>> nces/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>is  "as useful" as the original sign, to either the people who
>>>>>>erected it or  the people trying to find the new housing estate?
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't say it was a plain sign. A sticker giving 14 days notice.
>>
>>>>  The number of words you need you use won't fit on a sign that
>>>>small.
>>>
>>> It will in 12 point.

>> Have you actually seen such a notice in the flesh (I have). Like the
>>ones announcing a property has applied for planning permission it's
>>page of A4.
>
>That is a different document. And yes I have seen those,

But both have about the same amount of writing required.

--
Roland Perry

In message <9n4rvg9l4a7b7ka5ccfv1l1b4m19vtda7d@4ax.com>, at 21:07:07 on
Fri, 4 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 14:27:41 +0000, 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,
>>
>Correct but not generally applicable to something which is not
>"attached".

Fascinated by how you'll wriggle out of a sticker not being "attached".

>>and even doing things which will wash off like chalk-paintings on
>>pavements.
>>
>There is also case law concerning no offence being caused where there
>is lawful excuse or authority, recently WRT to marking queuing
>positions outside shops to maintain social distancing.

Fascinated how you'll justify that applying to pavement artists.

>>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.
>>
>A planning authority has the option of defacing/removing unlawful
>advertisements with or without judicial process,

But not without giving notice.

>the latter provision covering such as e.g. a continuing hazard (where
>multiple legal breaches will often be involved) or the inability to
>identify a person to serve notice upon.

But as I keep saying (and you keep ignoring) the processes involved are
nevertheless sufficiently bureaucratic that there's only the resources
available to do it in the most egregious cases.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tg4rvgdcaa50s3sg4fhp6tu7ee8vekovgi@4ax.com>, at 20:55:24 on
Fri, 4 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 13:56:27 +0000, 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.
>>
>It would not be criminal damage if done by the planning authority :-
>https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/225
>s.225 Town and Country Planning Act 1990
>Power to remove or obliterate placards and posters.
>"(1)Subject to subsections (2) and (3), the local planning authority
>may remove or obliterate any placard or poster—........."

Classic Ellson under-citing. Perhaps you should also have included:

Subject to subsection (4), where a placard or poster identifies the
person who displayed it or caused it to be displayed, the local
planning authority shall not exercise any power conferred by
*********
subsection (1) unless they have first given him notice in writing
**************************************************

(a) that in their opinion it is displayed in contravention of
regulations made under section 220; and

(b) that they intend to remove or obliterate it on the expiry of a
period specified in the notice

Which is what I've been saying all along !!!
--
Roland Perry

On 06/02/2022 08:46, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <stnu6n$h9k$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:43:19 on Sun, 6 Feb 2022,
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 06/02/2022 06:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <stmsm5$712$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:11:17 on Sat, 5 Feb
>>> 2022,  Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> On 05/02/2022 14:16, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <stjlqv$51g$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:55:59 on Fri, 4 Feb
>>>>> 2022,  Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> On 04/02/2022 14:27, Roland Perry 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
>>>>>>>>>>> (if they had  the time and energy to abstract from more
>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>> matters) is to put  up a YET ANOTHER sign giving notice that
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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-offe
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> nces/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> is  "as useful" as the original sign, to either the people who
>>>>>>> erected it or  the people trying to find the new housing estate?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't say it was a plain sign. A sticker giving 14 days notice.
>>>
>>>>>  The number of words you need you use won't fit on a sign that small.
>>>>
>>>> It will in 12 point.
>
>>>  Have you actually seen such a notice in the flesh (I have). Like the
>>> ones announcing a property has applied for planning permission it's
>>> page  of A4.
>>
>> That is a different document. And yes I have seen those,
>
> But both have about the same amount of writing required.
>

Nope. A statutory notice that the sign is illegal and must be removed
within 14 days. Plus the date.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

eRoland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <j68gdoFlv8hU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:43:52 on Sat, 5 Feb
> 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:

>>
>> PC Pro is available on the Readly App so for those who have access to that
>> having a glance at the publication without having to fork out on an issue
>> or shuffle through the shelves in a newsagent to just read a couple of
>> lines is one of the advantages of using it.
>
>> Roland is quoted in the February edition ( issue 128)
>
> 328 probably.
>
Must stop reading with my driving glasses.

>
>
> And at £5.99 an issue, I tend to agree. I know Tim Danton has to make
> living, but that's a pretty expensive magazine.
>
>> Took me awhile to find his name
>
> It doesn't have a "search" facility?

It does, just I forgot about it.

J.O.I. I just put your name in and as well as the two or lines attributed
to you in this thread
there is also a whole article (and a photo of you) in something called the
Video Hardware Handbook V2 about the Amstrad CPC which looks like you were
interviewed for , highlighted quote “ The CPC came with a welcome tape
which I wrote with my own fair hands” Roland Perry.
Further in there is another similar article (and another picture) about the
CPC 6128.

You also get mentioned in publications called Fushion Magazine Annual
2021, a couple of editions of Amtix CPC and several editions of Retro Gamer
both English and German though I haven’t time to see
see how comprehensive the mentions are though a quick glance it appears to
be a game character
named after you. “The character would jump all over the place,so we named
him after Roland Perry”
Lord Sugar told us.
Apparently you were an upgrade on a flea and the character a sort of
company mascot.

Boltar will probably be thinking your head will explode now.

>
>> on page 125 section 11 under a heading “ learning to code”.
>
> Is that some anecdotes from people who learnt their craft on 464's and
> went on to a successful career?

No. its a snippet about modern machines don’t really give people the
opportunity to write code or add gadgets with the exception of the
Raspberry Pi. and you go onto suggest people who wish to should just buy an
old machine and get on with it.

I suppose a similar analogy is buying a 30 +year old car if you want to
teach a youngster how to dismantle such things and understand what is what.
Modern vehicles while basically the same mechanics have them buried under
lots of other bits that aren’t home serviceable.

GH

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <j68gdoFlv8hU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:43:52 on Sat, 5 Feb
>> 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 12:22:24 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 11:58:43 +0000
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <stlndt$1j15$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 11:35:25 on Sat, 5 Feb
>>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 14:50:20 +0000
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah yeah, name dropping had nothing to do with it. Sure. You're so
>>>>>>> transparent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I was into name-dropping, you'd see it much more often.
>>>>>
>>>>> Define often.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> one-sentence summary of the subject matter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not your secretary. Go buy a copy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh look, you could have typed that one sentence in just as little time
>>>>>> as your unhelpful reply.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes I could have. After I'd gone and dug out the magazine from a
>>>>> pile upstairs
>>>>> and found the page again. Can't be arsed.
>>>>
>>>> If you did, you might notice that a David Perry was quoted on page 125,
>>>> but I can't see any quotes from Roland Perry.
>>>> Meanwhile, the April issue has just been delivered (yes, on 5 February!).
>>>
>>> PC Pro is available on the Readly App so for those who have access to that
>>> having a glance at the publication without having to fork out on an issue
>>> or shuffle through the shelves in a newsagent to just read a couple of
>>> lines is one of the advantages of using it.
>>
>>> Roland is quoted in the February edition ( issue 128)
>>
>> 328 probably.
>>
>>> but its hardly worth the time and effort to go out and find a copy just
>>> for that, no disrespect to Roland intended .
>>
>> And at £5.99 an issue, I tend to agree. I know Tim Danton has to make
>> living, but that's a pretty expensive magazine.
>>
>>> Took me awhile to find his name
>>
>> It doesn't have a "search" facility?
>>
>>> on page 125 section 11 under a heading “ learning to code”.
>>
>> Is that some anecdotes from people who learnt their craft on 464's and
>> went on to a successful career?
>
> It’s a magazine that has lost its way. Most articles seem to be written by
> their contributors with the mindset of what an earth are we going to come
> up with this month. Worth a quick flick through as part of a Readly
> subscription, but certainly not worth paying for in its own right. I’m
> surprised it’s still going, but may be surviving on the basis that there
> isn’t much competition these days.

It's having to feign great excitement about Windows 11 at the moment, with
regular breathless articles and cover stories about it. However, I don't
think most PC users have any great interest in it.

I know, when I looked at its great new features, none were of any interest
to me, so I looked at how I could make sure Windows Update didn't force it
on me. I tried the compatibility checker, and was relieved to see that it
won't run on my machine, so I can continue to ignore it till I next need a
new machine (not any time soon).

On 5 Feb 2022 21:54, MB wrote:
> On 05/02/2022 17:45, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
>> Window posters are up to the house owner. I would expect those using
>> stakes and boards (aka "garden posters") to collect them all up for
>> reuse, especially as it keeps the costs down for the next election.
>> Mind you,those parties funded by the Russians and other large
>> donors may not need to be so careful.
>
> I was referring to the one put up in public places, usually attached to
> street furniture.
>
> Some parties are good at removing after the election but many are just
> left there. I did read someone from one of the road contractors who
> wrote that they remove and bill the party after a time.
>

There are some regional exceptions, but, in general, attaching
political posters to street furniture is illegal.

In message <j06rvg9s1nsif6m0a0v66p8682416ol0q1@4ax.com>, at 21:20:36 on
Fri, 4 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 09:53:34 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <3vrivgliap7qlv9plpbaa26n02vcttrspo@4ax.com>, at 17:46:14 on
>>Tue, 1 Feb 2022, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>>remarked:
>>>On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 17:20:05 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Yes, but an ambulance driver isn't a police officer, and cannot
>>>>> therefore give permission for another vehicle to go through a red light.
>>>>
>>>>It only requires a change in the law to allow ambulance drivers to act as a
>>>>police officer in this context. There is presumably a reason why this
>>>>hasn’t happened.
>>>
>>>Even the police don't expect other vehicles to go through red lights in
>>>order to get out of their way, even though they are, technically, able
>>>to instruct them to do so. The ability of a police officer to tell a
>>>driver to disregard the lights (or other road traffic law) is intended
>>>for circumstances when that's necessary to clear the road for everybody
>>>- for example, when the lights have failed on red, or when a one-way
>>>street is blocked and people need to be authorised to leave in the
>>>"wrong" direction. And when an officer exercises that right, he is
>>>expected to have properly assessed the situation and is sure that giving
>>>such an instruction will not generate significant danger to anyone. None
>>>of which is applicable to a police car running on blues and twos.
>>
>>And yet they do it. I remember following a police car gingerly (urban
>>30mph dual carriageway, he was doing maybe 20mph in the lefthand lane, I
>>would otherwise have been doing slightly more in the righthand lane) as
>>we both approached a crossroads with red lights. So we slowed down in
>>our side-by-side convoy until he was about a car length from the red
>>lights, at which point he floored the accelerator and screeched across
>>my front and through the red lights, into the road on the right.
>>
>>It was all so sudden it seems unlikely to have been fully assessed.
>>Afterwards I did wonder if the slowish-speed he'd been going earlier
>>was because he was preoccupied taking instructions on his radio.
>>
>>Another incident on the same bit of dual carriageway, an ambulance on
>>blues and twos overtakes me and a little way ahead turns right down what
>>I know to be a fairly short cul-de-sac. "Wonder what's going on there" I
>>think.
>>
>>Twenty seconds later the ambulance emerges, even faster, still on blues
>>and twos turning right, in front of me, almost on only two wheels and
>>carries on down the dual carriageway. I suppose he was cross at having
>>taken a wrong turning, but could not possibly have assessed the traffic
>>coming in the opposite direction.
>>
>I see such "lost" ambulances fairly often around London.

What a lot of frantic red-light running by angry drivers! I don't see it
as often as you, which is why that one instance stuck in my mind.

>They can sometimes be well away from their usual patch and even with a
>satnav they can be at the mercy of vague description of their
>destination.

There were reports of an Ambulance that "couldn't find Addenbrookes
Hospital" a few years back. Despite it being one of the most road-signed
destinations in the south of the City, and having a CHP-plant chimney
you can spot from miles away. <https://goo.gl/maps/rF3x4xWfg3tWbTXe9>

This is the view I saw the other day, although the wide-angle lens
rather understates its visual impact. In fact you can see most of the
biocampus laid out before you. The spire on the right is the Catholic
Church not far from the station. <https://goo.gl/maps/MG465jpjmiZVXiWA9>

In other news, this really needs a plate saying "Oh no they don't"
<https://goo.gl/maps/xGHNhQ5R6CEjv1MM6> and I've never really understood
which of these two instructions take precedence
<https://goo.gl/maps/BMBR1FbZFkXHuWib9>
--
Roland Perry

In message <sto5ts$6fd$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:55:08 on Sun, 6 Feb 2022,
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 06/02/2022 08:46, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <stnu6n$h9k$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:43:19 on Sun, 6 Feb
>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 06/02/2022 06:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <stmsm5$712$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:11:17 on Sat, 5 Feb
>>>>2022,  Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> On 05/02/2022 14:16, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <stjlqv$51g$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:55:59 on Fri, 4
>>>>>>Feb 2022,  Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 04/02/2022 14:27, Roland Perry 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 (if they had  the time and energy to abstract from more
>>>>>>>>>>>>important matters) is to put  up a YET ANOTHER sign giving
>>>>>>>>>>>>notice that 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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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-offe nces/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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 is  "as useful" as the original sign, to either the
>>>>>>>>people who erected it or  the people trying to find the new
>>>>>>>>housing estate?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I didn't say it was a plain sign. A sticker giving 14 days notice.
>>>>
>>>>>>  The number of words you need you use won't fit on a sign that small.
>>>>>
>>>>> It will in 12 point.
>>
>>>>  Have you actually seen such a notice in the flesh (I have). Like
>>>>the ones announcing a property has applied for planning permission
>>>>it's page  of A4.
>>>
>>> That is a different document. And yes I have seen those,

>> But both have about the same amount of writing required.
>
>Nope. A statutory notice that the sign is illegal and must be removed
>within 14 days. Plus the date.

What we agree about is that it's a statutory notice. What we disagree
about is that such a notice could be compliantly as small as a postcard.

(And of course, there's the thing about who has the time and effort to
issue the notice and deploy it, when there are far more pressing things
to do. I was once told that Cambridgeshire had just one person in that
particular role, and it's a quite big area).
--
Roland Perry

In message <stm8ik$17or$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:28:04 on Sat, 5 Feb
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Sat, 05 Feb 2022 14:00:28 +0000
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 12:22:24 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 11:58:43 +0000
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>In message <stlndt$1j15$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 11:35:25 on Sat, 5 Feb
>>>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 14:50:20 +0000
>>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>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
>>>>>
>>>>>Yeah yeah, name dropping had nothing to do with it. Sure. You're so
>>>>>transparent.
>>>>
>>>>If I was into name-dropping, you'd see it much more often.
>>>
>>>Define often.
>>>
>>>>>>one-sentence summary of the subject matter.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not your secretary. Go buy a copy.
>>>>
>>>>Oh look, you could have typed that one sentence in just as little time
>>>>as your unhelpful reply.
>>>
>>>Yes I could have. After I'd gone and dug out the magazine from a pile
>>>upstairs
>>
>>>and found the page again. Can't be arsed.
>>
>>If you did, you might notice that a David Perry was quoted on page 125, but I
>>can't see any quotes from Roland Perry.
>
>I think you need new glasses. Or one of them was a misprint that got fixed in
>a later print run. Definately says Roland in mine on the same page.

Did you have to go and dig it out, to check that? Or do you have a
photographic memory, in which case it shouldn't be a problem briefly
summarising the subject matter.

>>Meanwhile, the April issue has just been delivered (yes, on 5 February!).
>
>This sort of nonsense has been going on for years with some magazines
>particularly computer and car ones. God knows why.

I told you why. Must be God now :)

Although there's an extra special elasticity in this case if the April
issue has arrived perhaps 20 days earlier than even the publishers
previously predicted.
--
Roland Perry

In message <stm7a0$r87$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:06:24 on Sat, 5 Feb 2022,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <oh4tvg14j281kmpn4io80efvclmfjkcuqc@4ax.com>, at 15:05:58 on
>> Sat, 5 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>>>>>> one-sentence summary of the subject matter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not your secretary. Go buy a copy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh look, you could have typed that one sentence in just as little time
>>>>>> as your unhelpful reply.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes I could have. After I'd gone and dug out the magazine from a
>>>>>pile upstairs
>>>>> and found the page again. Can't be arsed.
>>>>
>>>> So you remembered I'd been quoted and where, and this was apparently
>>>> important to you, but you didn't remember what the quote was about?
>>>
>>> And it wasn't you anyway.
>>
>> Can you clear up the actual issue-number. Boltar said "February" and
>> later "Intel on the cover" (and ignored the question about the number).
>>
>> 330 has 'Windows 11 laptops' on the cover.
>
>Yes, that's the April issue I received this morning.
>
>> So are we actually looking for 329 (in which case my trip to Tesco is
>> probably futile).
>
>Nothing that recent — 329 was the March issue, which would have been
>delivered about a month ago.
>
>The February issue with 'Intel is back' on the cover was issue no 328. It
>would have been superseded on shop shelves about a month ago.

I'll have look in Tesco next time I'm there (probably later in the week)
and see if the 329 March issue I saw yesterday (a bit dog-eared and the
only example) has been updated to 330 April.

--
Roland Perry

In message <stm90f$1di2$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:35:27 on Sat, 5 Feb
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:

>Which part of "Roland Perry, Former group technical consultant for Amstrad"
>in section 11, page 125 confused you?

And what did it go on to say (only a short summary is required).
--
Roland Perry