On 10/05/22 03:33, JNugent wrote:
> On 09/05/2022 10:13 am, Peter Keller wrote:
>> On 9/05/22 12:19, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 08/05/2022 09:13 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sunday, 8 May 2022 at 14:37:46 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
>>>>> On 08/05/2022 12:47, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> A driver, incensed by a group of fairy-cyclists he perceived to be
>>>>>> "taking up the whole road", repeatedly sounded his horn, drove
>>>>>> carelessly and abused the fairy-riders during an incident described
>>>>>> in court as "at the upper end of careless driving".
>>>>
>>>>>> Iain Macdonald was this week fined £1,040 and given five penalty
>>>>>> points for his actions, which unfolded on the B9154 near Moy, around
>>>>>> 20 miles south of Inverness, on May 1 last year.
>>>
>>>>>> Inverness Sheriff Court heard how the 63-year-old became angered by
>>>>>> the group of six cyclists, who fairy-solicitor John MacColl, on
>>>>>> behalf of his client, argued were "taking up the whole width of the
>>>>>> road when there was no need to".
>>>>>> Ultimately, having admitted driving carelessly and threatening or
>>>>>> abusive behaviour by shouting and swearing, Sherrif Ian Cruickshank
>>>>>> said the offence was "at the upper end of careless driving", but
>>>>>> decided against giving the motorist enough penalty points to see him
>>>>>> banned from driving.
>>>>
>>>>>> Instead, Macdonald received five penalty points and a £1,040 fine.
>>>>
>>>>>> https://road.cc/content/news/driver-angered-cyclists-taking-road-fined-ps1000-292615
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Note that this Act applies to cyclists as well:
>>>>
>>>>> [Begins]
>>>>
>>>>> The Highways Act 1980:
>>>>> [Section] 137 Penalty for wilful obstruction
>>>>> (1) If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way
>>>>> wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an
>>>>> offence and liable to a fine not exceeding £50.
>>>
>>> [Someone snipped the bit about the power of a constable to arrest anyone
>>> breaching that Act.]
>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLzGj10fg2g
>>>> 100's of guilty motorists.
>>>
>>> It is true that there are a lot more motor vehicles than there are
>>> fairy-cyclists.
>>>
>>> And the roads should be for the many, not the few.
>>
>> The roads should be for the many AND for the few.
>
> That's true enough, but definitely not for only the few as so many
> fairy-cyclist nutters seem to want.
>
> It would be fairer to ban fairy-cycling altogether than it it ever can
> be to prioritise it as they seek, at the expense of the vast majority.
>
> Only a small proportion of the population will ever take up
> fairy-cycling. It isn't 1870 any more!
>
>> It is illegal to ride a bicycle on the footpath.
>
> Don't tell I, tell 'e.

I seem to be out of line.
I want to use my fairy-bicycle everywhere practical as for me it is a
delightful convenient economical healthy viable means of transport.
I am not asking for priority for fairy-bicycles apart from general
considerations and road rules which apply equally to all road users.
Consideration, of course, includes allowing faster traffic to pass,
where practicable.
I don't care how few people take up fairy-bicycling. I will keep doing it.
I really resent the 'dictatorship of the majority'.

On 10/05/2022 10:10 am, Peter Keller wrote:
> On 10/05/22 03:33, JNugent wrote:
>> On 09/05/2022 10:13 am, Peter Keller wrote:
>>> On 9/05/22 12:19, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 08/05/2022 09:13 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, 8 May 2022 at 14:37:46 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
>>>>>> On 08/05/2022 12:47, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> A driver, incensed by a group of fairy-cyclists he perceived to be
>>>>>>> "taking up the whole road", repeatedly sounded his horn, drove
>>>>>>> carelessly and abused the fairy-riders during an incident described
>>>>>>> in court as "at the upper end of careless driving".
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Iain Macdonald was this week fined £1,040 and given five penalty
>>>>>>> points for his actions, which unfolded on the B9154 near Moy, around
>>>>>>> 20 miles south of Inverness, on May 1 last year.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Inverness Sheriff Court heard how the 63-year-old became angered by
>>>>>>> the group of six cyclists, who fairy-solicitor John MacColl, on
>>>>>>> behalf of his client, argued were "taking up the whole width of the
>>>>>>> road when there was no need to".
>>>>>>> Ultimately, having admitted driving carelessly and threatening or
>>>>>>> abusive behaviour by shouting and swearing, Sherrif Ian Cruickshank
>>>>>>> said the offence was "at the upper end of careless driving", but
>>>>>>> decided against giving the motorist enough penalty points to see him
>>>>>>> banned from driving.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Instead, Macdonald received five penalty points and a £1,040 fine.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://road.cc/content/news/driver-angered-cyclists-taking-road-fined-ps1000-292615
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that this Act applies to cyclists as well:
>>>>>
>>>>>> [Begins]
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Highways Act 1980:
>>>>>> [Section] 137 Penalty for wilful obstruction
>>>>>> (1) If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way
>>>>>> wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an
>>>>>> offence and liable to a fine not exceeding £50.
>>>>
>>>> [Someone snipped the bit about the power of a constable to arrest anyone
>>>> breaching that Act.]
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLzGj10fg2g
>>>>> 100's of guilty motorists.
>>>>
>>>> It is true that there are a lot more motor vehicles than there are
>>>> fairy-cyclists.
>>>>
>>>> And the roads should be for the many, not the few.
>>>
>>> The roads should be for the many AND for the few.
>>
>> That's true enough, but definitely not for only the few as so many
>> fairy-cyclist nutters seem to want.
>>
>> It would be fairer to ban fairy-cycling altogether than it it ever can
>> be to prioritise it as they seek, at the expense of the vast majority.
>>
>> Only a small proportion of the population will ever take up
>> fairy-cycling. It isn't 1870 any more!
>>
>>> It is illegal to ride a bicycle on the footpath.
>>
>> Don't tell I, tell 'e.
>
> I seem to be out of line.
> I want to use my fairy-bicycle everywhere practical as for me it is a
> delightful convenient economical healthy viable means of transport.

I know.

> I am not asking for priority for fairy-bicycles apart from general
> considerations and road rules which apply equally to all road users.

I know.

> Consideration, of course, includes allowing faster traffic to pass,
> where practicable.

Of course.

> I don't care how few people take up fairy-bicycling. I will keep doing it.
> I really resent the 'dictatorship of the majority'.

:-) And quite right too.

Avatar
TriTaxMan replied to chrisonatrike | 685 posts | 1 day ago
1 like

chrisonatrike wrote:

Address - again I don't think posting here is a good look. However what is here is apparently from Companies House - that's public info. More than that it's entirely up to you what you put in there. Indeed by law you are entitled (even steered towards) providing a correspondence address which isn't your home address. (You have to provide CH with a home address but they won't publish that unless you don't provide a correspondence address and / or ask them to keep your details on the public register - which is unusual). Same with date of birth - you normally only see month and year unless you opt for the public register. So that's a choice. (Leaving aside the fact that by law Companies House has to record anything you write and almost never checks anything, and it's only moderately expensive to set up structures which make your ownership very difficult to trace etc.).

I know exactly how easy it is to obscure public info on companies house. I deal with companies and company directors on a near daily basis as my job. And the vast majoritiy of companies tend to use their accountants address as their registered office and to a slightly lesser extent directors correspondence address. Most accountants offer this as a nominal fee service.

What was posted was a direct cut and paste from the directors details page on companies house.