In message <stm8re$1bdh$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:32:46 on Sat, 5 Feb
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 14:59:27 +0000
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <stlq60$p8s$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 12:22:24 on Sat, 5 Feb
>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>If I was into name-dropping, you'd see it much more often.
>>>
>>>Define often.
>>
>>Once a week rather than once a year. Assuming of course that mentioning
>>people you've worked with is de-facto name-dropping. Like I said, it's
>>more like history, or even citing your sources.
>
>Yet you never mention normal "shop floor" colleagues you probably spent 99%
>of your time with and who did most of the work.

Nope. In the recent Raspberry Pi piece I mention at least seven
colleagues on the 464 project who are probably not in the public eye,
versus Nick Hewer who has gained some notoriety a decade or two later,
and Messrs Kewney and Schofield, who are fairly well known but I
worked with mainly after leaving Amstrad. Also recently re-connected
with Dick Pountain (thanks to Facebook).

>Its always someone known in the
>public realm or some high office you just happen to drop into a post.

Apart from this thread, where if anything, you are encouraging me to
name even more names, when was the last time you saw me do that?

>>>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?
>
>Who says it was important? Given how you seem to like self publicising I'm
>surprised you didn't mention it.

I already answered that. Do try to keep up! I was unaware it had been
published at all.

--
Roland Perry

In message <j69lk4FshdjU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:18:44 on Sun, 6 Feb
2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>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)

There are very few photos of me (or anything else to do with the
project) from back then. All the ones I've seen are supplied by me, and
are a mixture of official publicity photos and a few from my personal
snapshot album.

Alternatively, is it one of me more recently - almost 40yrs older of
course.

>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.

It's true I was pretty much 100% responsible for implementing the
welcome tape. In another article recently I referred to it as the
"frilly stuff", but coding it was only half the task, the rest was more
of a scriptwriter deciding what suitably impressive-looking things to
include in what was basically a point-of-sale advert.

Of course, there's a YouTube for that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKGA69brQyI

I have the World's only hand-knitted jumper which is a snapshot of the
scene at 1:46, because one of my team's hobbies was handknitting
jumpers!

There's probably a photo of OAP-me wearing it, somewhere.

The other thing is, the demo was all [except perhaps the final video
game demo] written in BASIC (no peeks or pokes), because I wanted people
to know that *they* could write something similar if they wanted to.

Looks a bit crude 38yrs on, but that was all the technology was capable
of.

>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.

That's Roland in the Caves, a conversion of Bugaboo, and probably the
first commercial game we had, a little before the press launch.
<https://www.cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Roland_in_the_Caves>

>Apparently you were an upgrade on a flea and the character a sort of
>company mascot.

One of the intriguing features of having a series of games with the same
leading character, is how the sprite was different in almost all of
them. So nothing at all like something such as Super-Mario with the same
one.

>Boltar will probably be thinking your head will explode now.

He's stirred this up, so it's all his fault. Indeed, from about 1987 to
2016, the whole Amstrad CPC scene was dead (I tried to get some of the
team interested in a 30yr re-union in 2014, but to no avail), and I'd
put that episode behind me. But the last five years the retro scene has
exploded.

Looking back at my email, the first time I was contacted was March 2015
by someone who had noticed it was the *25*th anniversary of the GX4000
console, which was a unit I had very little to do with (by about 1986 I
was almost exclusively working on PC clones).

My second-in-command Cliff Lawson (oops, another internal name dropped)
did most of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amstrad_GX4000

>>> 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.

Thanks. I don't actually remember where/when I might have said that, but
it's very much on-message. Something I do remember saying is that the
CPC6128 was especially suitable as a machine to learn on (both then and
now) because the User Manual is just as much a carefully written [yes,
me again] textbook on programming, as a description of particularly the
CPC6128 itself.
--
Roland Perry

In message <stm2mj$tfq$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:47:47 on Sat, 5 Feb 2022,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <stjh2t$5so$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:34:53 on Fri, 4 Feb 2022,
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> And you know that was an officer of the local authority, not a
>> vigilante?
>
>Yes, because it was stated in the local paper with reference to the local
>authority doing it.

Fair enough. Now we just need to know if they acted lawfully!

Although I suppose if the "Cancelled" sign was separate, and not
literally *attached* to the event sign, all it would perhaps have needed
was planning permission.

And some LAs are apparently notorious for giving themselves PP, albeit
it usually takes a couple of months.
--
Roland Perry

In message <qigtvgtm2oedfkbhnacj7h0jv994u4ueqd@4ax.com>, at 18:37:00 on
Sat, 5 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>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.

But the lane which is hypothetically blocked is the bus lane, Dear Liza.
--
Roland Perry

In message <c86lvghc4isfstoi8384amhal100kpn2n9@4ax.com>, at 14:46:35 on
Wed, 2 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:41:00 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <205lvg17dl8242pg3s00uee7pdk17ll8c9@4ax.com>, at 14:24:56 on
>>Wed, 2 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 13:13:17 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <stdroj$9mj$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:00:19 on Wed, 2 Feb 2022,
>>>>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Precisely! With a size the external frame of 2.675m, you'd have to be
>>>>>>>> super-stupid to think the top didn't exceed a 2.7m height limit. The
>>>>>>>> bottom would have to be only 25cm (one inch) above the road surface and
>>>>>>>> it's quite obvious from the photos it's much more than that. Looks like
>>>>>>>> about SIX inches to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course, that's about 150cm, added to the 2.7m signed at Ely comes
>>>>>>>> to exactly the 2.85m if measures. So another prime candidate for a
>>>>>>>> wedgie. (And a wedgie that would be avoided if the road surface was
>>>>>>>> an inch lower).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure what measuring system you use in Ely, but when I
>>>>>>>was learning
>>>>>>> engineering, 25cm was close to 10", and 150cm was about 59". Not, of
>>>>>>> course, that we used cm or inches: engineers use mm and metres.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, so you can't see past obvious typos.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's not a typo if the error is made repeatedly, as you did. It indicates a
>>>>>basic lack of understanding of measuring dimensions, which is the error you
>>>>>are busily scolding others for. If you don't understand metric units, why
>>>>>be so critical of others who are guilty of the same error?
>>>>
>>>>You know perfectly well what dimensions I meant. Now answer the
>>>>underlying issue.
>>>
>>>The underlying issue is that some people don't understand metric
>>>dimensions, as you have so clearly illustrated.
>>
>>Not at all, I doubt any drivers seeing a 2.7m height restriction would
>>mistakenly assume that's actually 0.27m (limbo time) or 27m (no bridge
>>that high would have a warning sign).
>
>They probably still think in old measures, like you clearly do, and
>can't relate to metric measures, just as you have demonstrated.

More evidence you acknowledge you've lost the argument, if resorting to
lies such as that.
--
Roland Perry

In message <8u6mvg1697bu488va95ah4cecp46h4sqfh@4ax.com>, at 00:14:46 on
Thu, 3 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 09:48:55 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <stat2e$9g0$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:04:14 on Tue, 1 Feb 2022,
>>Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <st8v6q$59j$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:28:27 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>>> 2022, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
>>>>> On 31/01/2022 15:03, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> They know they are close to the indicated bridge height, but they
>>>>>>> reckon there's probably a safety margin built in. So, build in a
>>>>>>> bigger safety margin, and it will all be fine!
>>>>
>>>>>> Is 15cm not sufficient?
>>>>>
>>>>> You want to spend say £1m lowering the roadway in order to make the
>>>>> margin 18cm. :)
>>>>
>>>> You have no evidence it would cost that much.
>>>>
>>>>> You have no evidence that it will work.
>>>>
>>>> I think I have plenty.
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I know that 9 out of 10 collisions were caused by drivers only
>>>>> misjudging by a couple of cms,
>>>>
>>>> They should not be judging the height on-the-fLy as they approach, when
>>>> their vehicle is *at least* 15cm taller than the number on the signage.
>>>>
>>>>> but you have no evidence that they won't continue to do so
>>>>
>>>> The evidence for that is the lack of any candidate vehicles whose height
>>>> is in that inch-higher-then-the-current-victims bracket.
>>>>
>>>>> after the road is expensively lowered.
>>>>
>>>> Network Rail need to tone down the shroud-waving and decide if a simple
>>>> remedy in this instance is cost-effective.
>>>
>>>Is lowering the road a Network Rail cost or a local authority/highways
>>>responsibility?
>>
>>I expect it's on railway land, but they are happy to have the Highways
>>Authority maintain it, while simultaneously grumbling about the
>>easily-designed-out bridge bashes.
>>
>The road will fairly certainly be highway land, if only the surface.
>Unless there is a significant cost knocking on to the local authority
>then I would not expect (change hats if necessary) the highway
>authority to take an interest in spending large amounts of money on
>anything other than signage.

Rather than speculate, I thought I'd actually look at the definitive
mapping. And the underpass is adopted, as is rather more surprisingly
the surface of the now-closed level crossing.

Unlike the next road and level crossing north of there (Kiln Lane) which
is unadopted.

When work has been done of the surface of the Queen Adelaide level
crossings, it's been by Network Rail, despite also being allegedly
adopted. I wonder if they send a bill to the Highways Authority?
--
Roland Perry

In message <c52mvg9rvv1918isn651toa5srguccln0b@4ax.com>, at 23:14:10 on
Wed, 2 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 11:46:45 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <st907b$ssj$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:45:47 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:

>>In other news, something I learned last year is that the main
>>constraining factor on an emergency ambulance's design, is ensuring
>>that if there's an optional tail-lift added (to the basic design) it
>>doesn't tip it into the next category of driving licence. We are talking
>>a few tens of kilos here, not hundreds.
>>
>>Apparently there's no legislation to make an exception, unlike that
>>which says that when appropriate they can exceed the speed limit and
>>run red traffic lights.
>>
>There are already exemptions for driving a vehicle which would
>otherwise be outwith the limits of your licence :-
>https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa
>ds/attachment_data/file/891798/inf52-large-vehicles-you-can-drive-using-
>your-car-or-lorry-licence.pdf
>[tinyurl.com/5n845dab - INF52 Goods vehicles you can drive with a full
>car (category B) licence] and also exemptions applicable to military
>drivers.
>
>In past times there was a Secretary of State's exemption for motor
>cyclists carrying blood under "blue light" conditions which has
>morphed into statutory allowance.
>
>The same type of SoS's permission for marginally overweight (but
>type-approved) ambulances driven by specified persons (e.g. NHS/SJA/
>SAA/BRC) might be appropriate when taking into account that suitable
>training is required before drivers can travel under "blue light"
>conditions.

>One comparable exemption in the above leaflet is +0.75 tonnes in
>excess of 3.5t for a minibus which has "any specialist equipment for
>carrying disabled passengers". The limit for the driver is 21y or
>over, B licensed for 2y, and is a volunteer.
><snip>

More of your extreme over-reading exceptionalism. As evidenced by
ambulance suppliers not agreeing with your play-book.
--
Roland Perry

On 06/02/2022 12:22, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
> There are some regional exceptions, but, in general, attaching
> political posters to street furniture is illegal.

Perhaps someone should tell the political parties or dish out some
penalties.

> I see such "lost" ambulances fairly often around London.

I think most now have "jobs" sent to the terminal in the ambulance and
on the various "reality" programmes, I get the impression their control
can send the location direct to a Sat Nav.

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 18:30:28 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 06/02/2022 12:22, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
>> There are some regional exceptions, but, in general, attaching
>> political posters to street furniture is illegal.
>
>Perhaps someone should tell the political parties or dish out some
>penalties.
>
It is generally unlawful (as a trespass) rather than illegal unless
criminal damage is committed by the attachment of posters (e.g.
nailed/glued to a telephone/electric pole etc.).
Permitted posting is done in relation to planning legislation, e.g.
for Wakefield :-
https://www.wakefield.gov.uk/Documents/elections/2021-election-highways-poster-material-leafleting-guidance.pdf
(40 UKP per poster removed by the council)

On Sun, 06 Feb 2022 21:22:46 +0000, Charles Ellson
<charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 18:30:28 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>On 06/02/2022 12:22, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
>>> There are some regional exceptions, but, in general, attaching
>>> political posters to street furniture is illegal.
>>
>>Perhaps someone should tell the political parties or dish out some
>>penalties.
>>
>It is generally unlawful (as a trespass) rather than illegal unless
>criminal damage is committed by the attachment of posters (e.g.
>nailed/glued to a telephone/electric pole etc.).
>Permitted posting is done in relation to planning legislation, e.g.
>for Wakefield :-
>https://www.wakefield.gov.uk/Documents/elections/2021-election-highways-poster-material-leafleting-guidance.pdf
>(40 UKP per poster removed by the council)
>
OTOH if treated as fly-posting then there are criminal penalties
(<2500UKP plus 100 per day or a 75UKP FPN) but that might need some
examination of the wording of the Planning and Highways legislation in
case e.g. time is allowed to remove an offending item or doing it
accidentally might be part of a defence.

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 08:48:09 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>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".
>
Attached implies some form of fixing. Something which is held by
gravity or otherwise allowed to rest in position is not in the general
sense "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.
>
In some areas that is/was established usage. Are you going to try to
nick children playing hopscotch as one council official attempted to
do a few years ago?
IIRC for the simple offence of criminal damage you usually have to
prove practical damage above a threshold otherwise the CPS won't want
to know.

>>>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.
>
On a highway removal can be "forthwith" under s.149 Highways Act if
the PA deems it to be a danger or for any other reason if "the thing
in question ought to be removed without the delay involved in giving
notice or obtaining a removal and disposal order from a magistrates’
court under this section".
An advertisement can be defaced or removed without notice if it does
not identify the "person who displayed it" and their address. [s.225
Town and Country Planning Act 1990].
The same could apply by other action of law (e.g. Public Order Act
1986) if it would be offensive or otherwise illegal for the PA to
allow it to remain.

>>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.
>
or where a local authority has managed to establish the necessary
process for doing things ASAP. Highways Act breaches IME tend to be
dealt with fairly quickly (between a couple of days and a week) as
some can leave the highway authority in trouble if allowed to remain.

On 06/02/2022 21:56, Charles Ellson wrote:
> OTOH if treated as fly-posting then there are criminal penalties
> (<2500UKP plus 100 per day or a 75UKP FPN) but that might need some
> examination of the wording of the Planning and Highways legislation in
> case e.g. time is allowed to remove an offending item or doing it
> accidentally might be part of a defence.

Election posters can be put subject to some restrictions and must come
down after the election.

I suspect most councils will have similar rules.

Just do a quick Google search.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=posting+election+posters+on+lamp+posrs

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 08:50:35 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>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 !!!
>
The under-citing[TM] is yours. There are a total of 11 sub-sections,
including:-
225(4) Subsection (3) does not apply if—
(a)the placard or poster does not give his address, and
(b)the authority do not know it and are unable to ascertain it after
reasonable inquiry.
This describes the majority of advertisements seen randomly attached
to lampposts or other street furniture.

In any case on a highway the above Act applies in parallel with the
Highways Act 1980 which gives what in practice is authority to remove
or deface most unauthorised advertisements without notice, they only
have to be a "nuisance" (e.g. a distraction to road users) [s.149
Highways Act 1980] which in practice is for the highway authority to
decide.

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 18:35:21 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>
>> I see such "lost" ambulances fairly often around London.
>
>I think most now have "jobs" sent to the terminal in the ambulance and
>on the various "reality" programmes, I get the impression their control
>can send the location direct to a Sat Nav.
>
They do but that fails where the postcode is for various reasons
incorrect or in some cases defines a larger area (the premises number
might not have been supplied) where it is possible to find yourself on
the wrong side of a barrier.

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 17:45:27 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <qigtvgtm2oedfkbhnacj7h0jv994u4ueqd@4ax.com>, at 18:37:00 on
>Sat, 5 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>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.
>
>But the lane which is hypothetically blocked is the bus lane, Dear Liza.
>
The USP of a bus lane is that it remains devoid of unnecessary
obstructions during the hours of operation. That is not what is being
maintained where previous part-day/week bus lanes have been made 24/7
without removing the pre-existing parking places.

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 17:48:47 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <c52mvg9rvv1918isn651toa5srguccln0b@4ax.com>, at 23:14:10 on
>Wed, 2 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 11:46:45 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <st907b$ssj$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:45:47 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>>2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>In other news, something I learned last year is that the main
>>>constraining factor on an emergency ambulance's design, is ensuring
>>>that if there's an optional tail-lift added (to the basic design) it
>>>doesn't tip it into the next category of driving licence. We are talking
>>>a few tens of kilos here, not hundreds.
>>>
>>>Apparently there's no legislation to make an exception, unlike that
>>>which says that when appropriate they can exceed the speed limit and
>>>run red traffic lights.
>>>
>>There are already exemptions for driving a vehicle which would
>>otherwise be outwith the limits of your licence :-
>>https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa
>>ds/attachment_data/file/891798/inf52-large-vehicles-you-can-drive-using-
>>your-car-or-lorry-licence.pdf
>>[tinyurl.com/5n845dab - INF52 Goods vehicles you can drive with a full
>>car (category B) licence] and also exemptions applicable to military
>>drivers.
>>
>>In past times there was a Secretary of State's exemption for motor
>>cyclists carrying blood under "blue light" conditions which has
>>morphed into statutory allowance.
>>
>>The same type of SoS's permission for marginally overweight (but
>>type-approved) ambulances driven by specified persons (e.g. NHS/SJA/
>>SAA/BRC) might be appropriate when taking into account that suitable
>>training is required before drivers can travel under "blue light"
>>conditions.
>
>>One comparable exemption in the above leaflet is +0.75 tonnes in
>>excess of 3.5t for a minibus which has "any specialist equipment for
>>carrying disabled passengers". The limit for the driver is 21y or
>>over, B licensed for 2y, and is a volunteer.
>><snip>
>
>More of your extreme over-reading exceptionalism. As evidenced by
>ambulance suppliers not agreeing with your play-book.
>
?

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 18:35:21 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>> I see such "lost" ambulances fairly often around London.
>>
>> I think most now have "jobs" sent to the terminal in the ambulance and
>> on the various "reality" programmes, I get the impression their control
>> can send the location direct to a Sat Nav.
>>
> They do but that fails where the postcode is for various reasons
> incorrect or in some cases defines a larger area (the premises number
> might not have been supplied) where it is possible to find yourself on
> the wrong side of a barrier.
>

Is what3words used to pin down location?

On 6 Feb 2022 17:57, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <8u6mvg1697bu488va95ah4cecp46h4sqfh@4ax.com>, at 00:14:46 on
> Thu, 3 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 09:48:55 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <stat2e$9g0$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:04:14 on Tue, 1 Feb
2022,
>>>Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <st8v6q$59j$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:28:27 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>>>> 2022, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
>>>>>> On 31/01/2022 15:03, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They know they are close to the indicated bridge height, but they
>>>>>>>> reckon there's probably a safety margin built in. So, build in a
>>>>>>>> bigger safety margin, and it will all be fine!
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is 15cm not sufficient?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You want to spend say £1m lowering the roadway in order to make the
>>>>>> margin 18cm. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> You have no evidence it would cost that much.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You have no evidence that it will work.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I have plenty.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I know that 9 out of 10 collisions were caused by drivers only
>>>>>> misjudging by a couple of cms,
>>>>>
>>>>> They should not be judging the height on-the-fLy as they approach, when
>>>>> their vehicle is *at least* 15cm taller than the number on the signage.
>>>>>
>>>>>> but you have no evidence that they won't continue to do so
>>>>>
>>>>> The evidence for that is the lack of any candidate vehicles whose height
>>>>> is in that inch-higher-then-the-current-victims bracket.
>>>>>
>>>>>> after the road is expensively lowered.
>>>>>
>>>>> Network Rail need to tone down the shroud-waving and decide if a simple
>>>>> remedy in this instance is cost-effective.
>>>>
>>>>Is lowering the road a Network Rail cost or a local
authority/highways
>>>>responsibility?
>>>
>>>I expect it's on railway land, but they are happy to have the
Highways
>>>Authority maintain it, while simultaneously grumbling about the
>>>easily-designed-out bridge bashes.
>>>
>>The road will fairly certainly be highway land, if only the surface.
>>Unless there is a significant cost knocking on to the local authority
>>then I would not expect (change hats if necessary) the highway
>>authority to take an interest in spending large amounts of money on
>>anything other than signage.
>
> Rather than speculate, I thought I'd actually look at the definitive
> mapping. And the underpass is adopted, as is rather more surprisingly
> the surface of the now-closed level crossing.
>
> Unlike the next road and level crossing north of there (Kiln Lane) which
> is unadopted.
>
> When work has been done of the surface of the Queen Adelaide level
> crossings, it's been by Network Rail, despite also being allegedly
> adopted. I wonder if they send a bill to the Highways Authority?

I think I heard that that Network Rail were the Highways Authority for
actual crossings.

On 6 Feb 2022 22:46, MB wrote:
> On 06/02/2022 21:56, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> OTOH if treated as fly-posting then there are criminal penalties
>> (<2500UKP plus 100 per day or a 75UKP FPN) but that might need some
>> examination of the wording of the Planning and Highways legislation in
>> case e.g. time is allowed to remove an offending item or doing it
>> accidentally might be part of a defence.
>
> Election posters can be put subject to some restrictions and must come
> down after the election.
>
> I suspect most councils will have similar rules.
>
> Just do a quick Google search.
>
>
>
>
> https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=posting+election+posters+on+lamp+posrs
>
>

And your suspicion would be incorrect.
Also the OP said "street furniture". I said some regional variations
but generally not, which is true for street furniture in general. Yes,
some councils allow street lights but it is fairly rare.

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 17:57:43 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <8u6mvg1697bu488va95ah4cecp46h4sqfh@4ax.com>, at 00:14:46 on
>Thu, 3 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 09:48:55 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <stat2e$9g0$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:04:14 on Tue, 1 Feb 2022,
>>>Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <st8v6q$59j$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:28:27 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>>>> 2022, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
>>>>>> On 31/01/2022 15:03, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They know they are close to the indicated bridge height, but they
>>>>>>>> reckon there's probably a safety margin built in. So, build in a
>>>>>>>> bigger safety margin, and it will all be fine!
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is 15cm not sufficient?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You want to spend say £1m lowering the roadway in order to make the
>>>>>> margin 18cm. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> You have no evidence it would cost that much.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You have no evidence that it will work.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I have plenty.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I know that 9 out of 10 collisions were caused by drivers only
>>>>>> misjudging by a couple of cms,
>>>>>
>>>>> They should not be judging the height on-the-fLy as they approach, when
>>>>> their vehicle is *at least* 15cm taller than the number on the signage.
>>>>>
>>>>>> but you have no evidence that they won't continue to do so
>>>>>
>>>>> The evidence for that is the lack of any candidate vehicles whose height
>>>>> is in that inch-higher-then-the-current-victims bracket.
>>>>>
>>>>>> after the road is expensively lowered.
>>>>>
>>>>> Network Rail need to tone down the shroud-waving and decide if a simple
>>>>> remedy in this instance is cost-effective.
>>>>
>>>>Is lowering the road a Network Rail cost or a local authority/highways
>>>>responsibility?
>>>
>>>I expect it's on railway land, but they are happy to have the Highways
>>>Authority maintain it, while simultaneously grumbling about the
>>>easily-designed-out bridge bashes.
>>>
>>The road will fairly certainly be highway land, if only the surface.
>>Unless there is a significant cost knocking on to the local authority
>>then I would not expect (change hats if necessary) the highway
>>authority to take an interest in spending large amounts of money on
>>anything other than signage.
>
>Rather than speculate, I thought I'd actually look at the definitive
>mapping. And the underpass is adopted, as is rather more surprisingly
>the surface of the now-closed level crossing.
>
>Unlike the next road and level crossing north of there (Kiln Lane) which
>is unadopted.
>
>When work has been done of the surface of the Queen Adelaide level
>crossings, it's been by Network Rail, despite also being allegedly
>adopted. I wonder if they send a bill to the Highways Authority?
>
The landowner is generally responsible for physically maintaining a
highway; a highway (or any particular section of it) is not inevitably
an adopted road.

In message <jmg00h940ohhjfp4gocfg0n7vdg771b84i@4ax.com>, at 21:56:00 on
Sun, 6 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>On Sun, 06 Feb 2022 21:22:46 +0000, Charles Ellson
><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 18:30:28 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 06/02/2022 12:22, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
>>>> There are some regional exceptions, but, in general, attaching
>>>> political posters to street furniture is illegal.
>>>
>>>Perhaps someone should tell the political parties or dish out some
>>>penalties.
>>>
>>It is generally unlawful (as a trespass) rather than illegal unless
>>criminal damage is committed by the attachment of posters (e.g.
>>nailed/glued to a telephone/electric pole etc.).
>>Permitted posting is done in relation to planning legislation, e.g.
>>for Wakefield :-
>>https://www.wakefield.gov.uk/Documents/elections/2021-election-highways
>>-poster-material-leafleting-guidance.pdf
>>(40 UKP per poster removed by the council)
>>
>OTOH if treated as fly-posting then there are criminal penalties
>(<2500UKP plus 100 per day or a 75UKP FPN) but that might need some
>examination of the wording of the Planning and Highways legislation in
>case e.g. time is allowed to remove an offending item or doing it
>accidentally might be part of a defence.

M'lud, I accidentally attached this election poster to the traffic light
pole. Please allow me 14 days to remove it.
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 23:27:54 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 18:35:21 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> I see such "lost" ambulances fairly often around London.
>>>
>>> I think most now have "jobs" sent to the terminal in the ambulance and
>>> on the various "reality" programmes, I get the impression their control
>>> can send the location direct to a Sat Nav.
>>>
>> They do but that fails where the postcode is for various reasons
>> incorrect or in some cases defines a larger area (the premises number
>> might not have been supplied) where it is possible to find yourself on
>> the wrong side of a barrier.
>>
>
>Is what3words used to pin down location?
>
You can report a location with w3w to the services listed in
https://what3words.com/news/emergency/uk-emergency-services-rollout-what3words-in-control-rooms-to-save-resources-time-and-lives
(which doesn't seem to leave many exceptions, if any)
but I suspect that gets translated to a postcode or OS reference
before it is transmitted to the terminal in an ambulance. w3w should
be inherently more precise than the majority of postcodes while an OS
reference is as accurate as the number of digits used (or e.g. the
accuracy of a GPS device producing it). Even w3w has the capability of
putting you on the wrong side of a wall but the person/device
originating the code would need to be close to it for that to happen,
presuming also that there is no GPS/cellphone error involved.

In message <stpj50$7ol$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:46:55 on Sun, 6 Feb 2022,
MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>On 06/02/2022 21:56, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> OTOH if treated as fly-posting then there are criminal penalties
>> (<2500UKP plus 100 per day or a 75UKP FPN) but that might need some
>> examination of the wording of the Planning and Highways legislation in
>> case e.g. time is allowed to remove an offending item or doing it
>> accidentally might be part of a defence.
>
>Election posters can be put subject to some restrictions and must come
>down after the election.
>
>I suspect most councils will have similar rules.
>
>Just do a quick Google search.

"Removed posters will be retained by the Authority for seven days
prior to disposal and may be collected by you during this period."

I can't remember if I mentioned that before, but it's another layer of
bureaucracy - you can't just send someone round with a pair of cutters
and put clearly infringing material in the nearest bin.

I see quite few posters on all sorts of street furniture appealing for
information about lost cats. I'm not sure where they would fit into this
complex matrix of rules. But at least they normally have some contact
information on them!
--
Roland Perry

In message <bsk00hdnmk7sgidbqj4l2nm63t2npdufng@4ax.com>, at 23:06:26 on
Sun, 6 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 18:35:21 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>> I see such "lost" ambulances fairly often around London.
>>
>>I think most now have "jobs" sent to the terminal in the ambulance and
>>on the various "reality" programmes, I get the impression their control
>>can send the location direct to a Sat Nav.
>>
>They do but that fails where the postcode is for various reasons
>incorrect

Or non-existent; not all places have a postcode. I'm sure I've mentioned
the carriage washing machine in the sidings outside Cambridge Station
before.

>or in some cases defines a larger area (the premises number might not
>have been supplied) where it is possible to find yourself on the wrong
>side of a barrier.

--
Roland Perry