On 05/04/2018 00:31, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Roger wrote:
They would have to have locked it and then mislaid the key they used to
lock it.

How did they get out of the house when going off to France, then?

You can't open the closed door from the inside...


The same way that you're supposed to use those locks! You lock it while
the door is open, then slam it shut from the outside. Simples!

Ah - right. They locked it then threw away the key. ;-)


Or took it to France. What's *your* take on how it got locked?
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Roger Mills wrote:
They would have to have locked it and then mislaid the key they used to
lock it.

How did they get out of the house when going off to France, then?

You can't open the closed door from the inside...


The same way that you're supposed to use those locks! You lock it while
the door is open, then slam it shut from the outside. Simples!

Ah - right. They locked it then threw away the key. ;-)

What did the owners in France say when you phoned them ?

Didn't they say what they'd done with the key which they used to
lock the door from inside, before closing it from the outside?

Or did they say they'd used one of the pair of keys on the keyring ?

Surely all these questions should have been settled as a result
of that first phone call ?


michael adams

....

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news

On this note, I thought all houses had to have two means of escape, yet my neighbour's
weird house has only ONE door - at the side. I have a front door and a back door and
thought everyone did.

While that requuirement may well apply to new houses, not that I
know for sure, there are plenty of back-to-back houses still around,
mainly up North which occasionally come onto the market.


michael adams

....

On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 21:17:42 +0100, michael adams, another mentally
challenged, troll-feeding idiot, blabbered:


While that requuirement may well apply to new houses, not that I
know for sure, there are plenty of back-to-back houses still around,
mainly up North which occasionally come onto the market.

michael adams

Don't tell me you do NOT know that you are talking to a mentally deranged
lying trolling idiot!

On 05/04/2018 21:25, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 05 Apr 2018 21:17:42 +0100, michael adams
wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news

On this note, I thought all houses had to have two means of escape,
yet my neighbour's
weird house has only ONE door - at the side.* I have a front door and
a back door and
thought everyone did.

While that requuirement may well apply to new houses, not that I
know for sure, there are plenty of back-to-back houses still around,
mainly up North which occasionally come onto the market.

What is a back to back house?* I know chavvy council flats have only one
door, but a house where you have nobody living under or over you, I
expect to be able to go out the front or the back.

A true "back to back" only has a door (and windows) at the front: the
back is the back of the house behind it. Most have been demolished, but
a few converted to modern use, with appropriate lighting, ventilation
and plumbing. There are also some modern builds in the same format -
probably called split level maisonettes or some such estate agent bull****.

--
Max Demian

In article ,
Roger Mills wrote:
On 05/04/2018 00:31, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Roger wrote:
They would have to have locked it and then mislaid the key they used to
lock it.

How did they get out of the house when going off to France, then?

You can't open the closed door from the inside...


The same way that you're supposed to use those locks! You lock it while
the door is open, then slam it shut from the outside. Simples!

Ah - right. They locked it then threw away the key. ;-)


Or took it to France. What's *your* take on how it got locked?

I'm guessing the husband locked it with his key, as the wife's keyring was
the one the sister had. The kids both had keys too.

--
*Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
michael adams wrote:
The same way that you're supposed to use those locks! You lock it while
the door is open, then slam it shut from the outside. Simples!

Ah - right. They locked it then threw away the key. ;-)

What did the owners in France say when you phoned them ?

Only spoke to the wife on a poor line and didn't ask the whys and
wherefores. Only wanted their permission to remove the lock - or not.

Didn't they say what they'd done with the key which they used to
lock the door from inside, before closing it from the outside?

Well, her keys were still here, so presumably his?

Or did they say they'd used one of the pair of keys on the keyring ?

Surely all these questions should have been settled as a result
of that first phone call ?

I'll try and find out when they get back. As I'm intrigued too. My guess
is most of the keys are copies which work OK in the more worn main barrel.

The front door and presumably the lock were fitted by the previous owners
perhaps 3 years ago. It's a wood door made to roughly the original style.

--
*24 hours in a day ... 24 beers in a case ... coincidence? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 23:02:42 +0100, Max Demian, another mentally challenged
troll-feeding retard, blathered:


A true "back to back" only has a door (and windows) at the front: the
back is the back of the house behind it. Most have been demolished, but
a few converted to modern use, with appropriate lighting, ventilation
and plumbing. There are also some modern builds in the same format -
probably called split level maisonettes or some such estate agent bull****.

The troll thanks you for feeding him again, you mentally challenged
troll-feeding retard!

On 05/04/2018 23:08, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 05 Apr 2018 23:02:42 +0100, Max Demian
wrote:

On 05/04/2018 21:25, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 05 Apr 2018 21:17:42 +0100, michael adams
wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On this note, I thought all houses had to have two means of escape,
yet my neighbour's
weird house has only ONE door - at the side.* I have a front door and
a back door and
thought everyone did.

While that requuirement may well apply to new houses, not that I
know for sure, there are plenty of back-to-back houses still around,
mainly up North which occasionally come onto the market.

What is a back to back house?* I know chavvy council flats have only one
door, but a house where you have nobody living under or over you, I
expect to be able to go out the front or the back.

A true "back to back" only has a door (and windows) at the front: the
back is the back of the house behind it. Most have been demolished, but
a few converted to modern use, with appropriate lighting, ventilation
and plumbing. There are also some modern builds in the same format -
probably called split level maisonettes or some such estate agent
bull****.

Bloody hell I though flats were bad enough.* So there are actually
houses with only one outside wall?* This is the UK not India.* Wouldn't
it be better to get arrested and live in a prison cell?* Or just buy a
tent for £20 and go live in the mountains?

The format is perfectly all right with modern lighting, forced
ventilation and plumbing, provided they are not overcrowded.

--
Max Demian

On Fri, 06 Apr 2018 14:37:01 +0100, Max Demian wrote:

On 05/04/2018 23:08, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 05 Apr 2018 23:02:42 +0100, Max Demian
wrote:

On 05/04/2018 21:25, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 05 Apr 2018 21:17:42 +0100, michael adams
wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On this note, I thought all houses had to have two means of escape,
yet my neighbour's weird house has only ONE door - at the side.Â* I
have a front door and a back door and thought everyone did.

While that requuirement may well apply to new houses, not that I
know for sure, there are plenty of back-to-back houses still around,
mainly up North which occasionally come onto the market.

What is a back to back house?Â* I know chavvy council flats have only
one door, but a house where you have nobody living under or over you,
I expect to be able to go out the front or the back.

A true "back to back" only has a door (and windows) at the front: the
back is the back of the house behind it. Most have been demolished,
but a few converted to modern use, with appropriate lighting,
ventilation and plumbing. There are also some modern builds in the
same format - probably called split level maisonettes or some such
estate agent bull****.

Bloody hell I though flats were bad enough.Â* So there are actually
houses with only one outside wall?Â* This is the UK not India.Â* Wouldn't
it be better to get arrested and live in a prison cell?Â* Or just buy a
tent for £20 and go live in the mountains?

The format is perfectly all right with modern lighting, forced
ventilation and plumbing, provided they are not overcrowded.

It's almost the case with the house in our garden (on the site of the
infamous brothel).

The front is onto the side street (we are one away from a corner), with
full windows. The rear overlooks our garden, so is only allowed one small
high-up obscured pane for its kitchen (sole natural light in there). One
side overlooks a neighbour in the side street, and is blank. The fourth
overlooks us and is allowed one small, barely opening obscured pane.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 05/04/2018 23:02, Max Demian wrote:
On 05/04/2018 21:25, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 05 Apr 2018 21:17:42 +0100, michael adams
wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On this note, I thought all houses had to have two means of escape,
yet my neighbour's
weird house has only ONE door - at the side.* I have a front door
and a back door and
thought everyone did.

While that requuirement may well apply to new houses, not that I
know for sure, there are plenty of back-to-back houses still around,
mainly up North which occasionally come onto the market.

What is a back to back house?* I know chavvy council flats have only
one door, but a house where you have nobody living under or over you,
I expect to be able to go out the front or the back.

A true "back to back" only has a door (and windows) at the front: the
back is the back of the house behind it. Most have been demolished, but
a few converted to modern use, with appropriate lighting, ventilation
and plumbing. There are also some modern builds in the same format -
probably called split level maisonettes or some such estate agent bull****.

There are loads in places like Leeds. They appear on "Homes under the
hammer" from time to time.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
There are loads in places like Leeds. They appear on "Homes under the
hammer" from time to time.

I might buy one for a quid. I certainly wouldn't pay house price money for something
like that.

Clarkson "bought" a dilapidated one to justify spending say £24k
on an Alfa Romeo.

It went something like "instead of spending 25k on the deposit on a 500k
house, why not buy a house like this for only 1k, and spend the rest on a
nice Alfa Romeo ?

He then looked down through a broken window pane upstairs at the
front, to the Alfa parked in the street, and somebody had taken
all the wheels off.


michael adams

....
..

In article ,
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
The format is perfectly all right with modern lighting,

Lack of real daylight screws up your head.

Ah - right. Looks like you need to open your curtains.

--
*A snooze button is a poor substitute for no alarm clock at all *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
I've never understand houses which have enough garden to make into a drive, with an
expensive car parked on the street. Why not buy a car worth £24K instead of £25K, and
spend the £1K on a bit of gravel?

Because anyone can then park across your "drive" and block you
in. Or out.

And in any case in many places driving across pavements isn't
permitted

To prevent this you then need to fork out a few K, to the
local council, assuming this is still permitted, for a
dropped kerb. The council will then modify the pavement
and paint a yellow line in the road to prevent parking.

Whether they actually enforce it, or you still get blocked
in or out, is another matter.


michael adams

....

On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 14:37:01 +0100, Max Demian, another mentally challenged
troll-feeding retard, blathered:


houses with only one outside wall?* This is the UK not India.* Wouldn't
it be better to get arrested and live in a prison cell?* Or just buy a
tent for £20 and go live in the mountains?

The format is perfectly all right with modern lighting, forced
ventilation and plumbing, provided they are not overcrowded.

You KNOW by now that he is a sick asshole, and you STILL keep feeding him,
you sick asshole!

On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 16:07:00 +0100, michael adams, the mentally challenged
troll-feeding idiot, blathered again:

FLUSH retard's drivel

On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 17:06:27 +0100, michael adams, the mentally challenged,
troll-feeding idiot, blabbered again:

Because anyone can then park across your "drive" and block you
in. Or out.

And in any case in many places driving across pavements isn't
permitted

To prevent this you then need to fork out a few K, to the
local council, assuming this is still permitted, for a
dropped kerb. The council will then modify the pavement
and paint a yellow line in the road to prevent parking.

Whether they actually enforce it, or you still get blocked
in or out, is another matter.

michael adams

What an idiot! You KNOW why! BG

On 06/04/2018 15:47, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2018 14:52:15 +0100, Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2018 14:37:01 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 05/04/2018 23:08, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 05 Apr 2018 23:02:42 +0100, Max Demian
wrote:

Bloody hell I though flats were bad enough.* So there are actually
houses with only one outside wall?* This is the UK not India.* Wouldn't
it be better to get arrested and live in a prison cell?* Or just buy a
tent for £20 and go live in the mountains?

The format is perfectly all right with modern lighting, forced
ventilation and plumbing, provided they are not overcrowded.

It's almost the case with the house in our garden (on the site of the
infamous brothel).

The front is onto the side street (we are one away from a corner), with
full windows. The rear overlooks our garden, so is only allowed one small
high-up obscured pane for its kitchen (sole natural light in there). One
side overlooks a neighbour in the side street, and is blank. The fourth
overlooks us and is allowed one small, barely opening obscured pane.

I've never understood anyone owning a house where the front windows are
actually on the pavement.* Don't kids just bang on them every time they
pass?* And you'd certainly want them obscured with netting or something,
therefore you have no view.

The whole idea of net curtains is you can see out, but others can't see
in - provided you don't have the lights on inside - in which case it'll
be evening/night and you will close the main curtains.

Now you know how net curtains work.

--
Max Demian

On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 19:48:09 +0100, Max Demian, another mentally challenged
troll-feeding retard, blathered:


The whole idea of net curtains is you can see out, but others can't see
in - provided you don't have the lights on inside - in which case it'll
be evening/night and you will close the main curtains.

Now you know how net curtains work.

He certainly knows how to make you take even his most idiotic baits! BG

On 06/04/2018 17:06, michael adams wrote:
Because anyone can then park across your "drive" and block you
in. Or out.

If you have a proper access, i.e. a dropped kerb, then you
can complain to the plod if you are blocked in, and they
will threaten the culprit with obstruction.

However, if they block you from entering your property,
then it's a civil matter, plod is not interested.

"Andrew" wrote in message
news
On 06/04/2018 17:06, michael adams wrote:

Because anyone can then park across your "drive" and block you
in. Or out.

If you have a proper access, i.e. a dropped kerb, then you
can complain to the plod if you are blocked in, and they
will threaten the culprit with obstruction.

However, if they block you from entering your property,
then it's a civil matter, plod is not interested.

Andrew, do you think it somehow makes you look "clever" to selectively quote
from somebody else's post, totally ignore the context and thus deliberately
misrepresent what they posted ?

I placed "drive" in inverted context on purpose, as I was responding to
Swords proposal to create a "drive" in his front garden using gravel.

Had you bothered to read further you would have seen that my post
covered all the points you raised, but in rather more detail and
rather more accurately.

quote

"michael adams" wrote in message
news
And in any case in many places driving across pavements isn't
permitted

To prevent this you then need to fork out a few k, to the
local council, assuming this is still permitted, for a
dropped kerb. The council will then modify the pavement
and paint a yellow line [or lines] in the road to
prevent parking.

Whether they actually enforce it, or you still get blocked
in or out, is another matter.

/quote

It might also help Andrew if you actually had a clue as to what
you were talking about

Responsibility for policing yellow lines lies with the appropriate
Local Authority and not the police. And in England at least is
known as Civil Parking Enforcement.
Basically if you have paid the Local Authority to have a
dropped kerb installed and they have painted the requisite
yellow lines then its their responsibility to enforce it.
And any obstruction is an offence against Civil Parking
Regulations as enforced by the Local Council. The only
the police would want to get involved would be in the
event of a possible breach of the peace.


michael adams

....

In article , michael
adams wrote:

"Andrew" wrote in message
news
On 06/04/2018 17:06, michael adams wrote:

Because anyone can then park across your "drive" and block you in. Or
out.

If you have a proper access, i.e. a dropped kerb, then you can complain
to the plod if you are blocked in, and they will threaten the culprit
with obstruction.

However, if they block you from entering your property, then it's a
civil matter, plod is not interested.

Andrew, do you think it somehow makes you look "clever" to selectively
quote from somebody else's post, totally ignore the context and thus
deliberately misrepresent what they posted ?

I placed "drive" in inverted context on purpose, as I was responding to
Swords proposal to create a "drive" in his front garden using gravel.

Had you bothered to read further you would have seen that my post covered
all the points you raised, but in rather more detail and rather more
accurately.

quote

"michael adams" wrote in message
news

And in any case in many places driving across pavements isn't permitted

To prevent this you then need to fork out a few k, to the local council,
assuming this is still permitted, for a dropped kerb. The council will
then modify the pavement and paint a yellow line [or lines] in the road
to prevent parking.

a yellow line does not "Prevent" parking. It "prohibits" it which is a
quite different matter.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , michael
adams wrote:

"Andrew" wrote in message
news
On 06/04/2018 17:06, michael adams wrote:

Because anyone can then park across your "drive" and block you in. Or
out.

If you have a proper access, i.e. a dropped kerb, then you can complain
to the plod if you are blocked in, and they will threaten the culprit
with obstruction.

However, if they block you from entering your property, then it's a
civil matter, plod is not interested.

Andrew, do you think it somehow makes you look "clever" to selectively
quote from somebody else's post, totally ignore the context and thus
deliberately misrepresent what they posted ?

I placed "drive" in inverted context on purpose, as I was responding to
Swords proposal to create a "drive" in his front garden using gravel.

Had you bothered to read further you would have seen that my post covered
all the points you raised, but in rather more detail and rather more
accurately.

quote

"michael adams" wrote in message
news

And in any case in many places driving across pavements isn't permitted

To prevent this you then need to fork out a few k, to the local council,
assuming this is still permitted, for a dropped kerb. The council will
then modify the pavement and paint a yellow line [or lines] in the road
to prevent parking.

a yellow line does not "Prevent" parking. It "prohibits" it which is a
quite different matter.


Well yes.

That eventuality was covered in the final two lines of the passage
of text I quoted from my original post, which for some unaccountable
reason you've chosen to snip

"michael adams" wrote in message
news

" Whether they actually enforce it, or you still get blocked
in or out, is another matter."

So that the initial assumption is that parking will be prevented as
a result of the prohibition being enforced.

This is later qualified in my final sentence which you chose to snip
which covers the possibility of the prohibition not being enforced
in which case parking hasn't, as you say, been prevented.

It appears that this selective quotation business is catching.


michael adams

....

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news

So magically a drive with a lowered kerb has more access rights? Why can't people
parking use their eyes and avoid parking in front of a driveway, dropped kerb or not?
Works round here.....

Pretty obviously, it depends on how near or far away you are
from railway stations used by commuters, high roads with shops,
schools, or basically anything likely to attract people
with cars who need somewhere to park.

But don't just take my word for it. With any luck, another
expert may just happen along to show you where I've gone
wrong. Although in this case I've stuck to the one single
sentence; which may make things a bit more tricky for them.


michael adams

....

On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 22:06:29 +0100, michael adams, the mentally challenged,
troll-feeding idiot, blabbered again:

Pretty obviously, it depends on how near or far away you are
from railway stations used by commuters, high roads with shops,
schools, or basically anything likely to attract people
with cars who need somewhere to park.

But don't just take my word for it. With any luck, another
expert may just happen along to show you where I've gone
wrong. Although in this case I've stuck to the one single
sentence; which may make things a bit more tricky for them.

michael adams

Geezuz Christ ...are you stupid! You are even dumber than the troll you keep
feeding! LOL

On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 20:36:00 +0100, michael adams, the mentally challenged,
troll-feeding idiot, blabbered again:

Andrew, do you think it somehow makes you look "clever" to selectively quote
from somebody else's post, totally ignore the context and thus deliberately
misrepresent what they posted ?

I placed "drive" in inverted context on purpose, as I was responding to
Swords

That alone demonstrates your idiocy, idiot!

On 07/04/18 21:41, michael adams wrote:
It appears that this selective quotation business is catching.

Are you still being a ****, or is this in fact the real you?


--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!

michael adams wrote:

"Andrew" wrote in message
news
On 06/04/2018 17:06, michael adams wrote:

Because anyone can then park across your "drive" and block you
in. Or out.

If you have a proper access, i.e. a dropped kerb, then you
can complain to the plod if you are blocked in, and they
will threaten the culprit with obstruction.

However, if they block you from entering your property,
then it's a civil matter, plod is not interested.

Andrew, do you think it somehow makes you look "clever" to selectively quote
from somebody else's post, totally ignore the context and thus deliberately
misrepresent what they posted ?

I placed "drive" in inverted context on purpose, as I was responding to
Swords proposal to create a "drive" in his front garden using gravel.

Had you bothered to read further you would have seen that my post
covered all the points you raised, but in rather more detail and
rather more accurately.

quote

"michael adams" wrote in message
news
And in any case in many places driving across pavements isn't
permitted

To prevent this you then need to fork out a few k, to the
local council, assuming this is still permitted, for a
dropped kerb. The council will then modify the pavement
and paint a yellow line [or lines] in the road to
prevent parking.

Whether they actually enforce it, or you still get blocked
in or out, is another matter.

/quote

It might also help Andrew if you actually had a clue as to what
you were talking about

Responsibility for policing yellow lines lies with the appropriate
Local Authority and not the police. And in England at least is
known as Civil Parking Enforcement.
Basically if you have paid the Local Authority to have a
dropped kerb installed and they have painted the requisite
yellow lines then its their responsibility to enforce it.
And any obstruction is an offence against Civil Parking
Regulations as enforced by the Local Council. The only
the police would want to get involved would be in the
event of a possible breach of the peace.


michael adams

...
I think you are mistaken. The rules about dropped kerbs are nothing to
do with yellow lines. The much-modified common law of obstruction is
involved. And best of luck getting a council official to force a driver
to move his vehicle by waving tickets at him. I think this is more a
job for the police.

--

Roger Hayter

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 22:06:29 +0100, michael adams
wrote:

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news

So magically a drive with a lowered kerb has more access rights? Why
can't people parking use their eyes and avoid parking in front of a
driveway, dropped kerb or not? Works round here.....

Pretty obviously, it depends on how near or far away you are
from railway stations used by commuters, high roads with shops,
schools, or basically anything likely to attract people
with cars who need somewhere to park.

But don't just take my word for it. With any luck, another
expert may just happen along to show you where I've gone
wrong. Although in this case I've stuck to the one single
sentence; which may make things a bit more tricky for them.

The reason people park illegally is all the ******s who park their own
cars on the street instead of having drives, so there's no room left.
Streets with driveways have plenty room for others to park. Parking on
a road should be temporary, to go into a shop, to deliver something,
etc., not a permanent place for your car to live. Your car is your
property, keep it on your own bloody land!

I have to admit I agree with 100%. Probably means my opinion is
rubbish, but still.

--

Roger Hayter

On 07/04/2018 23:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 22:06:29 +0100, michael adams
wrote:

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
So magically a drive with a lowered kerb has more access rights? Why
can't people parking use their eyes and avoid parking in front of a
driveway, dropped kerb or not? Works round here.....

Pretty obviously, it depends on how near or far away you are
from railway stations used by commuters, high roads with shops,
schools, or basically anything likely to attract people
with cars who need somewhere to park.

But don't just take my word for it. With any luck, another
expert may just happen along to show you where I've gone
wrong. Although in this case I've stuck to the one single
sentence; which may make things a bit more tricky for them.

The reason people park illegally is all the ******s who park their own
cars on the street instead of having drives, so there's no room left.
Streets with driveways have plenty room for others to park. Parking on
a road should be temporary, to go into a shop, to deliver something,
etc., not a permanent place for your car to live. Your car is your
property, keep it on your own bloody land!

Except of course that much of the UK housing stock was built before
there was a need for car parking spaces.

Even those that do have a drive often have space for only a single
vehicle, but both husband and wife may need cars for their work and it
is entirely possible the grown-up children may still be at home and need
their own.

Before I bought my own house, I lived at my parents'. The drive would
fit one car. My father needed a car to get to and from work and to
travel on business; my mother needed one to get to and from my
grandmother's twice a day for caring duties; I needed a car as it took
20 minutes to get to or from work by car or 2-1/2 hours by public
transport. My sister also had a car - she was a student and getting to
and from university each day involved 3 buses, running for 10 minutes
between two of them and crossing a 6-lane road by a subway where two
students were raped in the space of a week.

SteveW

On 07/04/2018 23:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 22:06:29 +0100, michael adams
wrote:

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
So magically a drive with a lowered kerb has more access rights? Why
can't people parking use their eyes and avoid parking in front of a
driveway, dropped kerb or not? Works round here.....

Pretty obviously, it depends on how near or far away you are
from railway stations used by commuters, high roads with shops,
schools, or basically anything likely to attract people
with cars who need somewhere to park.

But don't just take my word for it. With any luck, another
expert may just happen along to show you where I've gone
wrong. Although in this case I've stuck to the one single
sentence; which may make things a bit more tricky for them.

The reason people park illegally is all the ******s who park their own
cars on the street instead of having drives, so there's no room left.
Streets with driveways have plenty room for others to park. Parking on
a road should be temporary, to go into a shop, to deliver something,
etc., not a permanent place for your car to live. Your car is your
property, keep it on your own bloody land!

I have to admit I agree with 100%. Probably means my opinion is
rubbish, but still.

On my street of terraced houses, my heart sinks whenever another house
has its kerb dropped. They go off to work all day, during which time
nobody else can park across it. Not all streets with driveways "have
plenty room for others to park".
--
Dave W

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
...
I think you are mistaken. The rules about dropped kerbs
are nothing to do with yellow lines.

Indeed not, I stand corrected.

The much-modified common law of obstruction is
involved.

I won't question your citing of common law all I know for a fact
is that implementation and enforcement of dropped kerbs are the
responsibility of the relevent Local Authority, who can in theory
at least, issue PCN's and arrange for vehicles to be towed away.

And best of luck getting a council official to
force a driver to move his vehicle by waving tickets at him.

A "council official" ? We should be so lucky ! Well not me, as it
happens. On the street where I live close to a tube station there
are a number of dropped kerbs. For years I parked my van in the
street close to my house. Because I mainly use it at weekends
commuter parking isn't a problem, the van stays where it is.
However some of my fellow residents with dropped kerbs were
forever bitching about having their drives blocked.
However rather than enforce the dropped kerb regs whatever they
are, the Council instead took the opportunity to introduce a
CPZ or controlled parking zone. For which all of us without
dk's are goingto have to pay around £70 a year. Now there's a
surpise !

Whereas all the poor dears with dropped kerbs - most of whom
haven't paid a penny having bought their houses with the dropped
kerb in place - and whose bitching was responsible for the CPZ
don't have to pay a penny. The just have to register their
dropped kerb with the council.

And all because the useless Council couldn't be bothered to
enforce the dropped kerbs in the first place.

I think this is more a job for the police.

Unfortunately the police don't; except where there's a likelihood
of a breach of the peace And having assumed responsibilty
for this area it's very doubtful if Local Authorities would
willingly cede responsibility back to the police. As it;s a very
good revenue earner* for them for one, one despite claims to
the contrary.

Otherwise this seems to be a chain yourself to the railings type
of issue. So good luck with that one.


* Across the bordr in a neighbouring Borough there's a road
that acts as a feeder for the A40 M40 at some times of day.
Houses one side, park the other although its always been fairly
quiet on the few times I've used it out of commuting hours.
Residents complained of speeding; so first they installed traffic
islands. Still complaints. Speed bumps. Its now impossible to
speed, with normal suspension at least.

In the morning the traffic flow is all southbound, in the
evening all northbound. Unfortunately residents were parking
their cars too close to the traffic islands on one side of the
road and this wasn't being enforced with lines or anything.
Making negotiating the traffic island on that side very
difficult. However with nothing coming the other way, many
drivers were taking the sensible course and going around
the other side of the island.

What they hadn't noticed was that LB Hounslow had installed
a traffic camera and a tiny yellow notice on a lampost
adjacent to one of the traffic islands. Result ? 10,000
Moving Traffic enforcement PCNS in one year from by far the most prolific
traffice camera in the Borough.

To achieve this figure I strongly suspect they held back
in actually issuing the fines so as to allow drivers
to rack up repeat offences. AlthoughI'm not sure whether
this is covered by legislation.

And just so as to rub it in the Council issued a satement
explaining that the measure was solely to promote road safety,
and in that regard (with the £60,000 now safely in their back
pocket) they'd now be painting yellow lines adjacent to the
traffic island.

Although another way of looking at it I suppose, for those
of us fortunate enough not to have been trapped by such ruses,
is that this is simply a good way of reducing our own Council
Tax burden


michael adams

....

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

(with the £60,000 now safely in their back
pocket)

Er, make that £600,000


michael adams

....

On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 23:38:01 +0100, Roger Hayter, another mentally challenged
troll-feeding retard, blathered:


The reason people park illegally is all the ******s who park their own
cars on the street instead of having drives, so there's no room left.
Streets with driveways have plenty room for others to park. Parking on
a road should be temporary, to go into a shop, to deliver something,
etc., not a permanent place for your car to live. Your car is your
property, keep it on your own bloody land!

I have to admit I agree with 100%. Probably means my opinion is
rubbish, but still.

No, it doesn't mean that, it ONLY means you are yet another troll-feeding
idiot!

In article ,
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
The reason people park illegally is all the ******s who park their own
cars on the street instead of having drives, so there's no room left.

A driveway entrance, dear boy, takes up as much parking space as a small
car. And some more.

--
*Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
Why don't you get a dropped kerb and a drive like them and stop parking your van on a
public highway? Of course you have to pay more, you're the ****** using up the road
space.

Most councils in London no longer issue permits for
dropped kerbs or arrange for the necessary work
to be done, at any price.

I suggested it in your case, as I assumed you lived
somewhere with less parking pressure. It might not even
cost £5k in your case. It can vary according to your
location.

However if you did as you originally suggested and merely
gravelled over you front garden then you would be committing
an offence by driving over the pavement. Which in theory
at least aren't intended to withstand the weight of
cars. So if you cracked the pavement the council would
charge you for the cost of replacing it. As it's a pound
to a pinch of sh*t that one of your neighbours will
have reported you.

What with the administration costs, three men working for
five days going back and forth from the depot to get the
correct slabs plus the cost of the barrier to stop pedestrians
walking into the work site, you're probably talking
of a round figure of about £5.k min. in any case.

Of course you could always chain yourself to the railings
outside the Town Hall, go on hunger strike, or set fire
to yourself instead as a protest. It's entirely up to you.


michael adams

....

In article ,
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
Most councils in London no longer issue permits for
dropped kerbs or arrange for the necessary work
to be done, at any price.

Another reason not to live in that overcrowded mess.

But then you couldn't afford to anyway.

--
*Women who seek to be equal to men lack ambition.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , James Wilkinson Sword
wrote:
On Sun, 08 Apr 2018 14:42:45 +0100, michael adams
wrote:

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
Why don't you get a dropped kerb and a drive like them and stop
parking your van on a public highway? Of course you have to pay more,
you're the ****** using up the road space.

Most councils in London no longer issue permits for dropped kerbs or
arrange for the necessary work to be done, at any price.

Another reason not to live in that overcrowded mess. Edinburgh has the
same sort of problem. Trams everywhere,

No, there's only one tram route. Unlike the situation up to the mid 1950s
which I used as a child.


20mph limits everywhere, pedestrian zones, no parking, fines everywhere
to stop for 5 minutes to go to a shop. According to some news articles
they've shot themselves in the foot by killing the tourist industry there.

Most tourists don't use cars and if they did teher are Park & Ride sites
which are the sensible way to get into a city centre.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Sun, 08 Apr 2018 13:42:21 +0100, Dave Plowman (News), the notorious,
troll-feeding idiot, blabbered:

The reason people park illegally is all the ******s who park their own
cars on the street instead of having drives, so there's no room left.

A driveway entrance, dear boy, takes up as much parking space as a small
car. And some more.

Listen, you troll-feeding retard, I'm slowly running out of patience with
your troll-feeding antics here! You KNOW what this is about! Get prepared!

On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 14:42:45 +0100, michael adams, another mentally
handicapped, troll-feeding cretin, blabbered:

FLUSH all of the disgusting cretin's troll-fodder