|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 13, 2023 23:19:20 GMT
If you don't know the applicable law, how can you know there are holes in the case? Because my dear Darling for one the applicable law at the time of the alleged offence was different for the one she was tried on. As it couldn't have been a shared footpath at the time because the new rules hadn't been applied and even it was admitted that a sign was put up sometime after the new rules were applied for one big hole you have managed to dig. Meh! If you don't understand by now that proportionality is the issue here, you never will. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 13, 2023 23:20:45 GMT
Because my dear Darling for one the applicable law at the time of the alleged offence was different for the one she was tried on. As it couldn't have been a shared footpath at the time because the new rules hadn't been applied and even it was admitted that a sign was put up sometime after the new rules were applied for one big hole you have managed to dig. Meh! If you don't understand by now that the issue here is proportionality, you never will. I know I shouldn't laugh I thought it was about the law. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 13, 2023 23:22:30 GMT
Thank you . I used patio magic on the drive and wondered if it would work on roofs . If this stuff works on roofs I might give it a go . 👍 |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 13, 2023 23:22:36 GMT
Meh! If you don't understand by now that the issue here is proportionality, you never will. I know I shouldn't laugh I thought it was about the law. Proportionality is a legal principle, so it is about the law. But don't stop laughing just because you didn't know that. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 13, 2023 23:26:44 GMT
I know I shouldn't laugh I thought it was about the law. Proportionality is a legal principle, so it is about the law. But don't stop laughing just because you didn't know that. The case was not tried on the applicable law though was it? which although I realise will cause much squirming and statements like dangerous criminal and great societal victory, that is pure hogwash. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 13, 2023 23:28:13 GMT
Proportionality is a legal principle, so it is about the law. But don't stop laughing just because you didn't know that. The case was not tried on the applicable law though was it? which although I realise will cause much squirming and statements like dangerous criminal and great societal victory, that is pure hogwash. Yes, it was. But you didn't even know that proportionality was a legal principle until a moment ago, so you're in no position to judge. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 13, 2023 23:30:50 GMT
The case was not tried on the applicable law though was it? which although I realise will cause much squirming and statements like dangerous criminal and great societal victory, that is pure hogwash. Yes, it was. But you didn't even know that proportionality was a legal principle until a moment ago, so you're in no position to judge. No it wasn't you are squirming. very unbecoming. I have already judged and a change of law is coming. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 13, 2023 23:31:20 GMT
Yes, it was. But you didn't even know that proportionality was a legal principle until a moment ago, so you're in no position to judge. No it wasn't you are squirming. very unbecoming. I have already judged and a change of law is coming. Good luck with that. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 14, 2023 0:08:04 GMT
Because my dear Darling for one the applicable law at the time of the alleged offence was different for the one she was tried on. As it couldn't have been a shared footpath at the time because the new rules hadn't been applied and even it was admitted that a sign was put up sometime after the new rules were applied for one big hole you have managed to dig. Meh! If you don't understand by now that proportionality is the issue here, you never will. So proportionally who was most to blame The one walking slowly on a footpath or The one riding illegally at ~ twice the pace of the pedestrian You know the answer but lets face it you won't admit it. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 14, 2023 0:09:20 GMT
Meh! If you don't understand by now that proportionality is the issue here, you never will. So proportionally who was most to blame The one walking slowly on a footpath or The one riding illegally at ~ twice the pace of the pedestrian You know the answer but lets face it you won't admit it. Yes, I know the answer. More importantly, the jury knew the answer. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 14, 2023 5:37:57 GMT
The first jury didn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 14, 2023 8:29:02 GMT
No it wasn't you are squirming. very unbecoming. I have already judged and a change of law is coming. Good luck with that. I don't need luck, 70% of people can see for themselves they are being had. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 14, 2023 9:10:51 GMT
I did my extension roof about 18 months ago, if you don't get every last bit it regenerates. Mines a tiled roof, low pitch. Asbestos? No, standard tiles. I already have two asbestos related lung diseases, I don't want any more; a recent chest X-ray showes they haven't worsened in 9 years. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 14, 2023 9:19:22 GMT
You're right. I forgot it was best of three. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 14, 2023 10:14:06 GMT
No, standard tiles. I already have two asbestos related lung diseases, I don't want any more; a recent chest X-ray showes they haven't worsened in 9 years. Shit and  , long may that no worse (or better) continue |
|
