Jump to content

dave_the_m

Members
  • Content Count

    468
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

61 Neutral

About dave_the_m

  • Rank
    Registered User

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. On private property, the owner or their agents can use reasonable force to eject trespassers; but it's a civil matter, and the police could only intervene if there was a breach of the peace (e.g. if the protesters used force to resist being ejected). If the protesters were stopping people carrying out lawful activities (e.g. blocking the entrance so no one could shop), then that might make it aggravated trespass, which is a criminal matter and the police could then start arresting people.
  2. Well, (a) those Roman roads were still designed by engineers, and (b) they didn't have to cater for cars, HGVs, and anything travelling at more than 4 mph.
  3. You seem to have strong opinions on what "we" all want. Have you polled the people of Sheffield to conclude this, or are you just guessing what we all want? Sheffield city centre already has lots of restaurants, bars, etc, for people who like that sort of thing. Are you saying they're always packed, so no-one can find a restaurant that's not already fully booked, and so we need more? If they're not already all packed to the gills, then perhaps "we" actually don't want more such facilities, and have already voted with our feet.
  4. The IPCC was replaced a few years ago by the IOPC (Independent Office for Police Conduct).
  5. It is dangerous to have laws that many people technically fall foul of, then have to rely on the discretion of the Powers That Be to only enforce them against "those" people. Because if, for any reason, they decide to enforce them against you, you have no defence. During the tree protests, over 40 protesters were arrested at various times. Only one was ever actually prosecuted, and found not guilty. But some of those other people spent a day in the cells, had their phones confiscated, and ended up with bail conditions stopping them from attending further protests.
  6. Once again, new rules that are ostensibly supposed to regulate "bad" behaviours, are so vague and general that almost anyone can be caught up if an enforcement officer (note: that includes council flunkies in addition to the police) takes a dislike to you. If would be a criminal offence to stand for a while near any doorway where there is a risk (in the opinion of said flunky) that you might annoy someone. It would be a criminal offence to busk if there's any chance that it might annoy someone. They can confiscate any alcohol in your possession if they "suspect" you have been drinking it earlier. Etc.
  7. No I'm not twisting your words. Your exact words words were "beggars infringe our liberties by making us feel uneasy walking around the city centre". I was just trying to point out that criminalising "making us feel uneasy" is a very dangerous path to take. While one person may be made to feel uneasy by someone begging, another may feel intimidated by someone who dresses in a provocative punk rock style. Criminalising "making us feel uneasy" isn't the solution. And as I've already pointed out, there are already many laws to deal with genuinely antisocial behaviour (sections 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act, Criminal Behaviour Orders and so on). If the police had the will and the resources, they already have the powers they need to tackle this.
  8. So you're suggesting that we should pass laws that say words to the effect that it is a criminal offence to make people like Irene "feel uneasy"? There are already many laws on the books to do with public order, concerning alarming, distressing and/or harassing behaviour. Do you wish to extend that to making someone feel uneasy? Perhaps because they dyed their hair a bright colour, or wear multiple piercings, perhaps?
  9. Planner1 was very clearly talking about the police in that sentence you just quoted out of context (the the context being about the police not investigating pavement parking).
  10. Sushi isn't raw fish - sushi is a style of prepared rice, which can have many different fillings, including raw fish or vegan stuff.
  11. I'm sure they make an exception for Our Irene and her refreshment trolley....
  12. I'm sure all the people who have planned hi-rise buildings across the world over the last century are now slapping their foreheads and exclaiming "if only we'd thought of that!"
  13. Er, no. The utility company (be it water, electricity or whatever) would have to cover the rest of the cost, and then would recoup it over time from the standing charges accrued from the extra customers now being supplied.
  14. This may surprise you, but when developers plan major new construction, they liaise with the utility providers to see whether there is sufficient capacity, or whether the infrastructure needs upgrading. The developer will have to pay (at least in part) for such an upgrade.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.