On 4 May 2024 at 14:39:57 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

> On 04/05/2024 01:06 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
>
>> On 3 May 2024 at 16:04:43 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>> On 03/05/2024 03:16 pm, Pancho wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
>>>> Extinction Rebellion aren't that much of an issue to anyone. They can be
>>>> tolerated/ignored...
>>
>>> ...except by (for instance) people stuck in a day-long traffic jam on a
>>> motorway where progress is not possible and reversing and U-turns are
>>> illegal?
>>> Particularly people with say, a prostate or other continence problem?
>>> People travelling with young children?
>>> Or perhaps those people don't matter and their complaints are just invalid?
>
>> Incompetent drivers cause such delays much more commonly,
>
> So what? They don't get away with it (and in any case, they rarely cause
> accidents deliberately, which is a crucial distinction).
>
> [I say "rarely" rather then "never" only to cover any outlier case you
> might cite. "Never" is much nearer the mark in practice.]
>
>> its really the
>> politics you object to. Not that I'm necessarily against locking up drivers
>> who cause pointless collisions on the motorways.
>
> That often happens, so your not being against it is neither here nor
> there, but what, pray, is a "pointless collision" (which would have to
> be defined in a way which acknowledges the concept of a non-pointless
> collision)?
>
> But of course, all of that was merely your attempt at diversion and
> deflection.
>
> Nobody has the right to obstruct the highway and prevent others from
> going about their business, whether that business is urgent or merely
> recreational.
>
> Do you disagree with that?

Yes. Dozens of official agencies have right to obstruct the highway for one or
another reason. In a complex modern society our rights and freedoms are
constantly compromised by others' rights and freedoms. You seem to attach an
almost holy primacy to the right to drive a motor vehicle up and down highways
at a considerable speed, trumping all other rights and freedoms. This I find
odd, but presumably you think it is a natural law of some kind.

Interestingly, our capitalist masters, whom you so much resent anyone
protesting against, fully intend to reduce car ownership five or ten fold over
the next few decades by making cars exclusively battery powered. They have
their own reasons for this, which are unlikely to entirely coincide with the
reasons they give. But they are the natural enemy of the personal transport
freedom fighter (such as yourself), much more so than any bunch of
well-meaning climate protestors blocking the occasional road.

--
Roger Hayter

On 04/05/2024 04:55 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:

> On 4 May 2024 at 14:39:57 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 04/05/2024 01:06 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>> On 3 May 2024 at 16:04:43 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 03/05/2024 03:16 pm, Pancho wrote:
>
>> [ ... ]
>
>>>>> Extinction Rebellion aren't that much of an issue to anyone. They can be
>>>>> tolerated/ignored...
>
>>>> ...except by (for instance) people stuck in a day-long traffic jam on a
>>>> motorway where progress is not possible and reversing and U-turns are
>>>> illegal?
>>>> Particularly people with say, a prostate or other continence problem?
>>>> People travelling with young children?
>>>> Or perhaps those people don't matter and their complaints are just invalid?
>
>>> Incompetent drivers cause such delays much more commonly,
>
>> So what? They don't get away with it (and in any case, they rarely cause
>> accidents deliberately, which is a crucial distinction).
>> [I say "rarely" rather then "never" only to cover any outlier case you
>> might cite. "Never" is much nearer the mark in practice.]
>
>>> its really the
>>> politics you object to. Not that I'm necessarily against locking up drivers
>>> who cause pointless collisions on the motorways.
>
>> That often happens, so your not being against it is neither here nor
>> there, but what, pray, is a "pointless collision" (which would have to
>> be defined in a way which acknowledges the concept of a non-pointless
>> collision)?

No definitions or distinctions between "pointless" and "non-pointless"
road traffic accidents, then?
>
>> But of course, all of that was merely your attempt at diversion and
>> deflection.
>
>> Nobody has the right to obstruct the highway and prevent others from
>> going about their business, whether that business is urgent or merely
>> recreational.
>
>> Do you disagree with that?
>
> Yes. Dozens of official agencies have right to obstruct the highway for one or
> another reason.

<sigh> I knew you would start with that lark!

Direct to the point: official agencies are not empowered to
inconvenience anyone except as absolutely necessary and only by
following due process - certainly not of as a result of the personal
decision of individuals.

But that was just another of your attempts at obfuscation, wasn't it?

You are clearly more than intelligent enough not to believe or assert
that criminal "protestors" are officers of an official agency acting in
a lawful official capacity. So what on Earth was the point of that
little run around the houses?

> In a complex modern society our rights and freedoms are
> constantly compromised by others' rights and freedoms. You seem to attach an
> almost holy primacy to the right to drive a motor vehicle up and down highways
> at a considerable speed, trumping all other rights and freedoms. This I find
> odd, but presumably you think it is a natural law of some kind.

As well as being a human right not to be penalised without due process
(especially when not even suspected of an offence) that freedom is
provided by statute which specifically prohibits obstruction of the
highway (and, as it happens. unlawful imprisonment). It may only be
compromised - and only when critically and objectively necessary - by an
official with lawful authority conferred by law.

Were you unaware of that?

> Interestingly, our capitalist masters, whom you so much resent anyone
> protesting against, fully intend to reduce car ownership five or ten fold over
> the next few decades by making cars exclusively battery powered. They have
> their own reasons for this, which are unlikely to entirely coincide with the
> reasons they give. But they are the natural enemy of the personal transport
> freedom fighter (such as yourself), much more so than any bunch of
> well-meaning climate protestors blocking the occasional road.

That's what you say.

On 2024-05-04, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
> On 03/05/2024 21:16, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> No, it's not even remotely anywhere near anything adjacent to the
>> neighbourhood of being as much as slightly like that.
>
> I could simply contradict you, but you haven't even paid for the five
> minute argument, let alone the full half hour.

You proposed an obviously false (indeed ridiculous) analogy and provided
no reasons whatsoever as to why it was valid. I don't owe you an argument
in response to your lack of one.

On 04/05/2024 17:22, JNugent wrote:

>
> As well as being a human right not to be penalised without due process
> (especially when not even suspected of an offence) that freedom is
> provided by statute which specifically prohibits obstruction of the
> highway (and, as it happens. unlawful imprisonment). It may only be
> compromised - and only when critically and objectively necessary - by an
> official with lawful authority conferred by law.
>
> Were you unaware of that?

That's a very bold attempt to state the law and perhaps inevitably
you're quite wrong.

I don't know whether President Biden was attempting to state what the
law is in the USA, and by using the loaded word "chaos" he sets up a
strawman. Fortunately in the UK the courts have considered the scope of
our right to obstruct highways in the course of a demonstration and we
clearly do have that right. No matter what dozy jobsworth from the
highway authority might complain and threaten to prosecute.

On 04/05/2024 07:54 pm, The Todal wrote:

> On 04/05/2024 17:22, JNugent wrote:
>
> As well as being a human right not to be penalised without due process
>> (especially when not even suspected of an offence) that freedom is
>> provided by statute which specifically prohibits obstruction of the
>> highway (and, as it happens. unlawful imprisonment). It may only be
>> compromised - and only when critically and objectively necessary - by
>> an official with lawful authority conferred by law.
>>
>> Were you unaware of that?
>
> That's a very bold attempt to state the law and perhaps inevitably
> you're quite wrong.
>
> I don't know whether President Biden was attempting to state what the
> law is in the USA, and by using the loaded word "chaos" he sets up a
> strawman.?

I take no particular notice of what he says on any subject.

Is there some reason why I should (because I don't)?

> Fortunately in the UK the courts have considered the scope of
> our right to obstruct highways in the course of a demonstration and we
> clearly do have that right. No matter what dozy jobsworth from the
> highway authority might complain and threaten to prosecute.

You must be using the word "obstruct" in an odd way, so as to negate the
effects of long-established law as well as certain recent enactments.

And trespassing upon a motorway as a pedestrian is a separate offence in
itself.

On Sat, 4 May 2024 19:54:55 +0100, The Todal wrote...
>
> On 04/05/2024 17:22, JNugent wrote:
>
> >
> > As well as being a human right not to be penalised without due process
> > (especially when not even suspected of an offence) that freedom is
> > provided by statute which specifically prohibits obstruction of the
> > highway (and, as it happens. unlawful imprisonment). It may only be
> > compromised - and only when critically and objectively necessary - by an
> > official with lawful authority conferred by law.
> >
> > Were you unaware of that?
>
> That's a very bold attempt to state the law and perhaps inevitably
> you're quite wrong.

JN's use of the phrase "due process" gives a clue as to how he has gone
wrong. The phrase has an ancient English history as far back as Magna
Carta, and is explicitly written into the US Constitution. But:-

<quote>

_English_law_and_American_law_diverge_

......

In 1977, an English political science professor explained the present
situation in England for the benefit of American lawyers:

An American constitutional lawyer might well be surprised by the
elusiveness of references to the term 'due process of law' in the
general body of English legal writing.... Today one finds no space
devoted to due process in Halsbury's Laws of England, in Stephen's
Commentaries, or Anson's Law and Custom of the Constitution. The phrase
rates no entry in such works as Stroud's Judicial Dictionary or
Wharton's Law Lexicon.

Two similar concepts in contemporary English law are natural justice
...... and the British constitutional concept of the rule of law....
However, neither concept lines up perfectly with the American conception
of due process, which presently contains many implied rights not found
in the ancient or modern concepts of due process in England.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

--
Tim Jackson
news@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

On 04/05/2024 19:53, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2024-05-04, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>> On 03/05/2024 21:16, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> No, it's not even remotely anywhere near anything adjacent to the
>>> neighbourhood of being as much as slightly like that.
>>
>> I could simply contradict you, but you haven't even paid for the five
>> minute argument, let alone the full half hour.
>
> You proposed an obviously false (indeed ridiculous) analogy

No, I didn't. (Crosses arms.)

On 05/05/2024 01:44 am, Tim Jackson wrote:

> On Sat, 4 May 2024 19:54:55 +0100, The Todal wrote...
>> On 04/05/2024 17:22, JNugent wrote:
>
>>> As well as being a human right not to be penalised without due process
>>> (especially when not even suspected of an offence) that freedom is
>>> provided by statute which specifically prohibits obstruction of the
>>> highway (and, as it happens. unlawful imprisonment). It may only be
>>> compromised - and only when critically and objectively necessary - by an
>>> official with lawful authority conferred by law.
>
>>> Were you unaware of that?
>
>> That's a very bold attempt to state the law and perhaps inevitably
>> you're quite wrong.
>
> JN's use of the phrase "due process" gives a clue as to how he has gone
> wrong. The phrase has an ancient English history as far back as Magna
> Carta, and is explicitly written into the US Constitution. But:-
>
> <quote>
>
> _English_law_and_American_law_diverge_
>
> .....
>
> In 1977, an English political science professor explained the present
> situation in England for the benefit of American lawyers:
>
> An American constitutional lawyer might well be surprised by the
> elusiveness of references to the term 'due process of law' in the
> general body of English legal writing.... Today one finds no space
> devoted to due process in Halsbury's Laws of England, in Stephen's
> Commentaries, or Anson's Law and Custom of the Constitution. The phrase
> rates no entry in such works as Stroud's Judicial Dictionary or
> Wharton's Law Lexicon.
>
> Two similar concepts in contemporary English law are natural justice
> ..... and the British constitutional concept of the rule of law....
> However, neither concept lines up perfectly with the American conception
> of due process, which presently contains many implied rights not found
> in the ancient or modern concepts of due process in England.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

This whole sub-discussion is a plain and obvious diversion from the main
issue, which is the claimed "rights" of self-styled protestors to commit
- with impunity - criminal actions which harm innocent third parties.

Mr Hayter came up with the...er... "argument" that those criminals who
call themselves protestors are somehow allowed to commit their offences
because sometimes, motorways and other routes are obstructed by traffic
accidents. He or another poster attempted to expand that by saying that
that sometimes, in certain circumstances, the police close a road. That
was easily countered by pointing out the rather obvious fact that the
police and certain others (eg, non-police traffic officers) are legally
empowered and under a duty to do so in certain circumstances. Those
things are done within the framework of law and the powers devolved to
authorised persons to operate them, to be used reasonably and only when
objectively necessary. Nobody has a personal right to choose to obstruct
a highway for their own reasons.

I referred to the operation of those legal powers as "due process". That
is an entirely reasonable way to distinguish the lawful acts of the
police or traffic officers in an emergency and the unlawful acts of
criminals who deliberately cause great inconvenience, cost and harm to
others. Nothing hangs on whether or not the phrase is used in Magna
Carta or is described in another, equally comprehensible way.

People do have a right to protest - lawfully.

They do not have a right to harm others (no-one has that).

They do not have a right to commit offences (no-one has that either).

They do not, in other words, have some sort of right to win, a principle
easily illustrated by the situation where a demonstration is met by a
counter-demonstration of protestors with opposing aims.

In such circumstances, who would have the "right to win" - if it existed?

The first group to arrive? The second? Both of them? The one you
personally approve of?

The only correct answer is "neither of them".

On 5 May 2024 at 12:20:19 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

> On 05/05/2024 01:44 am, Tim Jackson wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 4 May 2024 19:54:55 +0100, The Todal wrote...
>>> On 04/05/2024 17:22, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>>> As well as being a human right not to be penalised without due process
>>>> (especially when not even suspected of an offence) that freedom is
>>>> provided by statute which specifically prohibits obstruction of the
>>>> highway (and, as it happens. unlawful imprisonment). It may only be
>>>> compromised - and only when critically and objectively necessary - by an
>>>> official with lawful authority conferred by law.
>>
>>>> Were you unaware of that?
>>
>>> That's a very bold attempt to state the law and perhaps inevitably
>>> you're quite wrong.
>>
>> JN's use of the phrase "due process" gives a clue as to how he has gone
>> wrong. The phrase has an ancient English history as far back as Magna
>> Carta, and is explicitly written into the US Constitution. But:-
>>
>> <quote>
>>
>> _English_law_and_American_law_diverge_
>>
>> .....
>>
>> In 1977, an English political science professor explained the present
>> situation in England for the benefit of American lawyers:
>>
>> An American constitutional lawyer might well be surprised by the
>> elusiveness of references to the term 'due process of law' in the
>> general body of English legal writing.... Today one finds no space
>> devoted to due process in Halsbury's Laws of England, in Stephen's
>> Commentaries, or Anson's Law and Custom of the Constitution. The phrase
>> rates no entry in such works as Stroud's Judicial Dictionary or
>> Wharton's Law Lexicon.
>>
>> Two similar concepts in contemporary English law are natural justice
>> ..... and the British constitutional concept of the rule of law....
>> However, neither concept lines up perfectly with the American conception
>> of due process, which presently contains many implied rights not found
>> in the ancient or modern concepts of due process in England.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process
>
> This whole sub-discussion is a plain and obvious diversion from the main
> issue, which is the claimed "rights" of self-styled protestors to commit
> - with impunity - criminal actions which harm innocent third parties.
>
> Mr Hayter came up with the...er... "argument" that those criminals who
> call themselves protestors are somehow allowed to commit their offences
> because sometimes, motorways and other routes are obstructed by traffic
> accidents. He or another poster attempted to expand that by saying that
> that sometimes, in certain circumstances, the police close a road. That
> was easily countered by pointing out the rather obvious fact that the
> police and certain others (eg, non-police traffic officers) are legally
> empowered and under a duty to do so in certain circumstances. Those
> things are done within the framework of law and the powers devolved to
> authorised persons to operate them, to be used reasonably and only when
> objectively necessary. Nobody has a personal right to choose to obstruct
> a highway for their own reasons.
>
> I referred to the operation of those legal powers as "due process". That
> is an entirely reasonable way to distinguish the lawful acts of the
> police or traffic officers in an emergency and the unlawful acts of
> criminals who deliberately cause great inconvenience, cost and harm to
> others. Nothing hangs on whether or not the phrase is used in Magna
> Carta or is described in another, equally comprehensible way.
>
> People do have a right to protest - lawfully.
>
> They do not have a right to harm others (no-one has that).

They clearly do have the right to inconvenience others. There is very little
one can do in a complex society without some risk of inconveniencing others.
Harm is a loaded word, but assuming any inconvenience is a harm, then yes they
do have that right.

snip

--

Roger Hayter

On 05/05/2024 21:01, billy bookcase wrote:
> "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:l9p8bkFro6cU1@mid.individual.net...
> way.
>>
>> People do have a right to protest - lawfully.
>>
>> They do not have a right to harm others (no-one has that).
>>
>
> So motorists don't have the right to harm children living near busy roads
> by belching out harmful atmospheric pollution then ?
>
> quote
>
> Evidence. Exposure to air pollution has both short and long-term effects on the
> health of children. Children living near busy roads are four times more likely than
> adults to have reduced lung function. Children exposed to long-term nitrogen
> dioxide (NO2) pollution are more likely to have bronchitis symtoms
>
> unquote:
>
> https://urbanhealth.org.uk/insights/reports/air-pollution-and-children
>
>
> bb
>
>

Marx once said: “Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...
well, I have others.”

I think many people's “rights” are like that. Good if they support the
entitlement they are currently promoting, but if they don't, well, they
have other “rights” that do.

On 04/05/2024 14:32, JNugent wrote:

>> It is called real life. What happened when I, a Londoner, with
>> prostate problems, going about his normal activity, encountered, by
>> chance, 1000s of Extinction Rebellion protestors on Vauxhall Bridge.
>>
>>> Why on Earth was it up to them whether you or anyone else was allowed
>>> to proceed?
>>>
>>
>> They didn't stop me. One of the protestors saw I was trying to cross
>> and started actively shouting at other protestors to let me through.
>> It was like travelling though a carnival. No violence or thuggery.
>>
>>> Do you not understand what you have written?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, a first-hand account of a peaceful protest. Rather than a Daily
>> Express, or Biden, version of total anarchy and chaos.
>
> What if they had decided not to let you through?
>

I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:l9p8bkFro6cU1@mid.individual.net...
way.
>
> People do have a right to protest - lawfully.
>
> They do not have a right to harm others (no-one has that).
>

So motorists don't have the right to harm children living near busy roads
by belching out harmful atmospheric pollution then ?

quote

Evidence. Exposure to air pollution has both short and long-term effects on the
health of children. Children living near busy roads are four times more likely than
adults to have reduced lung function. Children exposed to long-term nitrogen
dioxide (NO2) pollution are more likely to have bronchitis symtoms

unquote:

https://urbanhealth.org.uk/insights/reports/air-pollution-and-children

bb

On 05/05/2024 09:01 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
> "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:l9p8bkFro6cU1@mid.individual.net...
> way.
>>
>> People do have a right to protest - lawfully.
>>
>> They do not have a right to harm others (no-one has that).
>>
>
> So motorists don't have the right to harm children living near busy roads
> by belching out harmful atmospheric pollution then ?

Can you point to an Act or Statutory Instrument which provides that
right? Or even one that provides a countervailing right to insist that
no traffic comes near you or near your home?

> quote
> Evidence. Exposure to air pollution has both short and long-term effects on the
> health of children. Children living near busy roads are four times more likely than
> adults to have reduced lung function. Children exposed to long-term nitrogen
> dioxide (NO2) pollution are more likely to have bronchitis symtoms
> unquote:
>
> https://urbanhealth.org.uk/insights/reports/air-pollution-and-children

And?

That attempt at an argument is nonsense.

I was brought up in various houses in and adjacent to main roads in a
big city, including one actually facing the A59 Scotland Road and
another at the inner end of that same route, 75 yards from the Mersey
Tunnel entrance. I'm still here, live and kicking. And there's a bus
stop more or less at the bottom of my driveway.

Even if your argument had force (it has none), would that mean that it
is acceptable to obstruct a motorway and imprison hundreds, if not
thousands, of innocent third parties for several hours? Your mother,
perhaps? Or your children?

On 05/05/2024 10:41 pm, Pancho wrote:

> On 04/05/2024 14:32, JNugent wrote:
>
>>> It is called real life. What happened when I, a Londoner, with
>>> prostate problems, going about his normal activity, encountered, by
>>> chance, 1000s of Extinction Rebellion protestors on Vauxhall Bridge.
>
>>>> Why on Earth was it up to them whether you or anyone else was
>>>> allowed to proceed?
>
>>> They didn't stop me. One of the protestors saw I was trying to cross
>>> and started actively shouting at other protestors to let me through.
>>> It was like travelling though a carnival. No violence or thuggery.
>
>>>> Do you not understand what you have written?
>
>>> Yes, a first-hand account of a peaceful protest. Rather than a Daily
>>> Express, or Biden, version of total anarchy and chaos.

If they didn't want to cause harm and delay, what were they doing there?
How did it ever come down to their "letting" you proceed? What right did
they have not to let you - or *anyone* *else* - through?
>
>> What if they had decided not to let you through?
>
> I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

Other people, in their thousands, already have come to that bridge on
one occasion or another.

Do they simply have no rights?

"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:l9qca9F2e3rU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 05/05/2024 09:01 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>> "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:l9p8bkFro6cU1@mid.individual.net...
>> way.
>>>
>>> People do have a right to protest - lawfully.
>>>
>>> They do not have a right to harm others (no-one has that).
>>>
>>
>> So motorists don't have the right to harm children living near busy roads
>> by belching out harmful atmospheric pollution then ?
>
> Can you point to an Act or Statutory Instrument which provides that right?

Do they or don't they ?

I'm asking "you" the question. And so if you think they have, then the
onus is on you to quote the relevant Act or Statutory Instrument in support
of your claim

> Or even one that provides a countervailing right to insist that no traffic comes near
> you or near your home?

What's me or my home got to do with anything ?

What's being discussed are here the rights of small children, who through no fault
of their own find themselves living near busy roads in inner cities, to breathe
relatively unpolluted air.

This was the reasoning behind the introduction of the original congestion charge
in London and its ULEZ extension, The fact that the latter inconveniences
poorer motorists with less efficient cars and vans is indeed unfortunate.

Whereas the fact that both measures appear to instil a burning sense of grievance
and injustice in the minds of motorists beset with an overweening sense of
entitlement is simply an added bonus in addition to the undisputed environmental
benefits

>
>> quote
>> Evidence. Exposure to air pollution has both short and long-term effects on the
>> health of children. Children living near busy roads are four times more likely than
>> adults to have reduced lung function. Children exposed to long-term nitrogen
>> dioxide (NO2) pollution are more likely to have bronchitis symtoms
>> unquote:
>>
>> https://urbanhealth.org.uk/insights/reports/air-pollution-and-children
>
> And?
>
> That attempt at an argument is nonsense.
>
> I was brought up in various houses in and adjacent to main roads in a big city,
> including one actually facing the A59 Scotland Road and another at the inner end of
> that same route, 75 yards from the Mersey Tunnel entrance. I'm still here, live and
> kicking. And there's a bus stop more or less at the bottom of my driveway.
>
> Even if your argument had force (it has none),

So children don't have the right to breathe relatively unpolluted air ?

The fact that you as a child were denied the opportunity to exercise that right
is neither here nor there.

As a child you probably also spent a lot of your time in smoke filled rooms
with the adults puffing away.

Another "opportunity" denied modern children.

> would that mean that it is acceptable to obstruct a motorway and imprison hundreds, if
> not thousands, of innocent third parties for several hours? Your mother, perhaps? Or
> your children?

You're not back in Liverpool in the 1950's. Nowadays there are all sorts of gadgets
and gizmos, the Internet, smartphones, sat navs, up to date traffic news all of which
help to forewarn the modern day motorist of any possible obstructions or delays;
and even help them find an alternative route. Maybe your local branch of Halfords
may be to suggest something ?

bb

>

On 06/05/2024 12:43, billy bookcase wrote:
> "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:l9qca9F2e3rU1@mid.individual.net...
>> On 05/05/2024 09:01 pm, billy bookcase wrote:

>
> You're not back in Liverpool in the 1950's. Nowadays there are all sorts of gadgets
> and gizmos, the Internet, smartphones, sat navs, up to date traffic news all of which
> help to forewarn the modern day motorist of any possible obstructions or delays;
> and even help them find an alternative route. Maybe your local branch of Halfords
> may be to suggest something ?
>

Ah that's OK then. No problem, since it is assumed that (a) there IS
alternative route and (b) the growing assumption that everyone & his dog
are surgically attached to some sort of electronic gizmo.

On 06/05/2024 12:43 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
> "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:l9qca9F2e3rU1@mid.individual.net...
>> On 05/05/2024 09:01 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>>> "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:l9p8bkFro6cU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> way.
>>>>
>>>> People do have a right to protest - lawfully.
>>>>
>>>> They do not have a right to harm others (no-one has that).
>>>>
>>>
>>> So motorists don't have the right to harm children living near busy roads
>>> by belching out harmful atmospheric pollution then ?
>>
>> Can you point to an Act or Statutory Instrument which provides that right?
>
> Do they or don't they ?

Pace your odd description of what travellers do, the answer -
classically - is that what is not forbidden by law is permissible.

Whether many people would agree with your use of "belching" and "harmful
atmospheric pollution" is another matter.
>
> I'm asking "you" the question. And so if you think they have, then the
> onus is on you to quote the relevant Act or Statutory Instrument in support
> of your claim

See above. There are, of course, rules within the C&U regs which control
the emissions from motor vehicles (those rules are not even particularly
new).

>> Or even one that provides a countervailing right to insist that no traffic comes near
>> you or near your home?
>
> What's me or my home got to do with anything ?

You seem keen to penalise others for real or imaginary "offences". Are
you less keen for it to happen to you or those close to you?

My attitude to it is that NO-ONE deserves to be imprisoned by criminals,
related or known to me - or not.
>
> What's being discussed are here the rights of small children, who through no fault
> of their own find themselves living near busy roads in inner cities, to breathe
> relatively unpolluted air.

Define "relatively" and explain how the current C&U Regs don't cover it.
>
> This was the reasoning behind the introduction of the original congestion charge
> in London and its ULEZ extension, The fact that the latter inconveniences
> poorer motorists with less efficient cars and vans is indeed unfortunate.
>
> Whereas the fact that both measures appear to instil a burning sense of grievance
> and injustice in the minds of motorists beset with an overweening sense of
> entitlement is simply an added bonus in addition to the undisputed environmental
> benefits
>
I see.
>>
>>> quote
>>> Evidence. Exposure to air pollution has both short and long-term effects on the
>>> health of children. Children living near busy roads are four times more likely than
>>> adults to have reduced lung function. Children exposed to long-term nitrogen
>>> dioxide (NO2) pollution are more likely to have bronchitis symtoms
>>> unquote:
>
>>> https://urbanhealth.org.uk/insights/reports/air-pollution-and-children
>>
>> And?
>> That attempt at an argument is nonsense.
>> I was brought up in various houses in and adjacent to main roads in a big city,
>> including one actually facing the A59 Scotland Road and another at the inner end of
>> that same route, 75 yards from the Mersey Tunnel entrance. I'm still here, live and
>> kicking. And there's a bus stop more or less at the bottom of my driveway.
>> Even if your argument had force (it has none),
>
> So children don't have the right to breathe relatively unpolluted air ?

Does anybody have that right outside the legal controls imposed on
emissions (of all sorts of activities)?

If so, where is it set down and codified?

> The fact that you as a child were denied the opportunity to exercise that right
> is neither here nor there.
> As a child you probably also spent a lot of your time in smoke filled rooms
> with the adults puffing away.
> Another "opportunity" denied modern children.

Oh, *some* things have gotten better since I were a lad. I would always
accept that.

But not everything has.

>> would that mean that it is acceptable to obstruct a motorway and imprison hundreds, if
>> not thousands, of innocent third parties for several hours? Your mother, perhaps? Or
>> your children?
>
> You're not back in Liverpool in the 1950's. Nowadays there are all sorts of gadgets
> and gizmos, the Internet, smartphones, sat navs, up to date traffic news all of which
> help to forewarn the modern day motorist of any possible obstructions or delays;
> and even help them find an alternative route. Maybe your local branch of Halfords
> may be to suggest something ?

So thousands of people were NOT imprisoned by the criminal protestors?

Did the media simply make that up?

Was my wife NOT held stationary in a M25 jam for four hours two years ago?

In message <l9s7r9FaumaU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<JNugent73@mail.com> writes
>On 06/05/2024 12:43 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>> "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
>>news:l9qca9F2e3rU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 05/05/2024 09:01 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>> "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:l9p8bkFro6cU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> way.
>>>>>
>>>>> People do have a right to protest - lawfully.
>>>>>
>>>>> They do not have a right to harm others (no-one has that).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So motorists don't have the right to harm children living near busy roads
>>>> by belching out harmful atmospheric pollution then ?
>>>
>>> Can you point to an Act or Statutory Instrument which provides that right?
>> Do they or don't they ?
>
>Pace your odd description of what travellers do, the answer -
>classically - is that what is not forbidden by law is permissible.
>
>Whether many people would agree with your use of "belching" and
>"harmful atmospheric pollution" is another matter.
>> I'm asking "you" the question. And so if you think they have, then
>>the
>> onus is on you to quote the relevant Act or Statutory Instrument in support
>> of your claim
>
>See above. There are, of course, rules within the C&U regs which
>control the emissions from motor vehicles (those rules are not even
>particularly new).
>
>>> Or even one that provides a countervailing right to insist that no
>>>traffic comes near
>>> you or near your home?
>> What's me or my home got to do with anything ?
>
>You seem keen to penalise others for real or imaginary "offences". Are
>you less keen for it to happen to you or those close to you?
>
>My attitude to it is that NO-ONE deserves to be imprisoned by
>criminals, related or known to me - or not.
>> What's being discussed are here the rights of small children, who
>>through no fault
>> of their own find themselves living near busy roads in inner cities,
>>to breathe
>> relatively unpolluted air.
>
>Define "relatively" and explain how the current C&U Regs don't cover it.
>> This was the reasoning behind the introduction of the original
>>congestion charge
>> in London and its ULEZ extension, The fact that the latter inconveniences
>> poorer motorists with less efficient cars and vans is indeed unfortunate.
>> Whereas the fact that both measures appear to instil a burning sense
>>of grievance
>> and injustice in the minds of motorists beset with an overweening sense of
>> entitlement is simply an added bonus in addition to the undisputed
>>environmental
>> benefits
>>
>I see.
>>>
>>>> quote
>>>> Evidence. Exposure to air pollution has both short and long-term
>>>>effects on the
>>>> health of children. Children living near busy roads are four times
>>>>more likely than
>>>> adults to have reduced lung function. Children exposed to long-term
>>>>nitrogen
>>>> dioxide (NO2) pollution are more likely to have bronchitis symtoms
>>>> unquote:
>>
>>>> https://urbanhealth.org.uk/insights/reports/air-pollution-and-children
>>>
>>> And?
>>> That attempt at an argument is nonsense.
>>> I was brought up in various houses in and adjacent to main roads in
>>>a big city,
>>> including one actually facing the A59 Scotland Road and another at
>>>the inner end of
>>> that same route, 75 yards from the Mersey Tunnel entrance. I'm still
>>>here, live and
>>> kicking. And there's a bus stop more or less at the bottom of my driveway.
>>> Even if your argument had force (it has none),
>> So children don't have the right to breathe relatively unpolluted
>>air ?
>
>Does anybody have that right outside the legal controls imposed on
>emissions (of all sorts of activities)?
>
>If so, where is it set down and codified?
>
>> The fact that you as a child were denied the opportunity to exercise
>>that right
>> is neither here nor there.
>> As a child you probably also spent a lot of your time in smoke filled rooms
>> with the adults puffing away.
>> Another "opportunity" denied modern children.
>
>Oh, *some* things have gotten better since I were a lad. I would always
>accept that.
>
>But not everything has.
>
>>> would that mean that it is acceptable to obstruct a motorway and
>>>imprison hundreds, if
>>> not thousands, of innocent third parties for several hours? Your
>>>mother, perhaps? Or
>>> your children?
>> You're not back in Liverpool in the 1950's. Nowadays there are all
>>sorts of gadgets
>> and gizmos, the Internet, smartphones, sat navs, up to date traffic
>>news all of which
>> help to forewarn the modern day motorist of any possible obstructions
>>or delays;
>> and even help them find an alternative route. Maybe your local branch
>>of Halfords
>> may be to suggest something ?
>
>So thousands of people were NOT imprisoned by the criminal protestors?
>
>Did the media simply make that up?
>
>Was my wife NOT held stationary in a M25 jam for four hours two years ago?
>
If the police were to detain you for four hours simply because of their
'deeply held convictions' (which is, I believe, how some protesters have
got away their actions), you'd have a pretty good case for trying to get
them prosecuted for 'false imprisonment' (a criminal offence).
--
Ian
Aims and ambitions are neither attainments nor achievements

"Les. Hayward" <les@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:v1as29$3bqg$1@solani.org...
>>
>
> Ah that's OK then. No problem, since it is assumed that (a) there IS alternative route
> and (b)

Please name any journey between two specific places in the UK
apart possibly from journeys made between Motorway Servce Stations
which are only possible via a motorway

> the growing assumption that everyone & his dog are surgically attached to some sort of
> electronic gizmo.

The electronic gizmos are mostly attached to the car.
Car radios dishing out traffic news, are quite popular nowadays
so I believe. As are Satnavs. So as to discover that alternative
route that quite possibly many drivers never even realised
existed.

bb

>

"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:l9s7r9FaumaU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 06/05/2024 12:43 pm, billy bookcase wrote:

Gross snippage

>>
>> You're not back in Liverpool in the 1950's. Nowadays there are all sorts of gadgets
>> and gizmos, the Internet, smartphones, sat navs, up to date traffic news all of which
>> help to forewarn the modern day motorist of any possible obstructions or delays;
>> and even help them find an alternative route. Maybe your local branch of Halfords
>> may be to suggest something ?
>
> So thousands of people were NOT imprisoned by the criminal protestors?

Who's to know ? Maybe they did all think they were still living in the 1950's ?

>
> Did the media simply make that up?
>
> Was my wife NOT held stationary in a M25 jam for four hours two years ago?

Presumably you bought her the wrong Christmas present.

So how exactly is that the protestors fault ?

bb

>

On 06/05/2024 20:46, billy bookcase wrote:
> "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:l9s7r9FaumaU1@mid.individual.net...
>> On 06/05/2024 12:43 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>
> Gross snippage
>
>>>
>>> You're not back in Liverpool in the 1950's. Nowadays there are all sorts of gadgets
>>> and gizmos, the Internet, smartphones, sat navs, up to date traffic news all of which
>>> help to forewarn the modern day motorist of any possible obstructions or delays;
>>> and even help them find an alternative route. Maybe your local branch of Halfords
>>> may be to suggest something ?
>>
>> So thousands of people were NOT imprisoned by the criminal protestors?
>
> Who's to know ? Maybe they did all think they were still living in the 1950's ?
>
>>
>> Did the media simply make that up?
>>
>> Was my wife NOT held stationary in a M25 jam for four hours two years ago?
>
> Presumably you bought her the wrong Christmas present.
>
> So how exactly is that the protestors fault ?
>

How do you get off a motorway when suddenly stopped between junctions? A satnav
might tell you how - if the car could fly I suppose.

--
kat
>^..^<

On 06/05/2024 09:42 pm, Ian Jackson wrote:

> JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> writes

[ ... ]

>> So thousands of people were NOT imprisoned by the criminal protestors?
>> Did the media simply make that up?
>> Was my wife NOT held stationary in a M25 jam for four hours two years
>> ago?
>
> If the police were to detain you for four hours simply because of their
> 'deeply held convictions' (which is, I believe, how some protesters have
> got away their actions), you'd have a pretty good case for trying to get
> them prosecuted for 'false imprisonment' (a criminal offence).

Quite so. That's intimately connected to my point and is another facet
of it.

And the act does not become lawful simply because it is committed by
someone who isn't a police officer.

"kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l9uer1Fl1mkU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>
> How do you get off a motorway when suddenly stopped between junctions? A satnav might
> tell you how - if the car could fly I suppose.

I don't claim any real knowledge on this topic as I very rarely drive
on motorways but apparently detailed information can be displayed on
the overhead gantries forewarning drivers of potential problems many
junctions ahead. Same as changes in speed limits and lane closures

And then in addition there is always the traffic news; which I believe
is a popular feature on the wireless for any drivers who happen to be
listening in

bb

On 08/05/2024 07:54 pm, billy bookcase wrote:

> "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> How do you get off a motorway when suddenly stopped between junctions? A satnav might
>> tell you how - if the car could fly I suppose.
>
> I don't claim any real knowledge on this topic as I very rarely drive
> on motorways but apparently detailed information can be displayed on
> the overhead gantries forewarning drivers of potential problems many
> junctions ahead. Same as changes in speed limits and lane closures
>
> And then in addition there is always the traffic news; which I believe
> is a popular feature on the wireless for any drivers who happen to be
> listening in

Are you aware (in general) of the route, purpose and function of the M25
/ A282?

If you were in Essex, five miles north of the Dartford Crossing and
heading towards the Channel Tunnel, hoping to cover the last 60 miles to
the terminal in ninety minutes, when you hear that a protestor has
forced the police to close the crossing, what alternative route would
you take (assuming you heard whilst still on the A13 or sufficiently
north of it that you were able to use that exit from the M25)?

Alternatively, if you were near Warrington, Lancs, driving south over
the Thelwall Viaduct heading for Wolverhampton and heard that a severe
collision had closed all four lanes of the M6 at Knutsford Services,
what would your alternative plan consist of?

Do you think that the A50 (Warrington to the Potteries) would be able to
cope with diverted southbound traffic (let alone northbound as well if
both carriageways of M6 were closed)?

On 08/05/2024 19:54, billy bookcase wrote:
> "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:l9uer1Fl1mkU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>
>> How do you get off a motorway when suddenly stopped between junctions? A satnav might
>> tell you how - if the car could fly I suppose.
>
> I don't claim any real knowledge on this topic as I very rarely drive
> on motorways but apparently detailed information can be displayed on
> the overhead gantries forewarning drivers of potential problems many
> junctions ahead. Same as changes in speed limits and lane closures

I am more likely to see wrnings "many junctions ahead" on the A14 ( a far easier
road to get off) than on the M25, where we have counted ourselves "lucky" to get
a warning one ahead - just - only to find the alternative route jammed by a
lorry that got stiuck under a bridge.

>
> And then in addition there is always the traffic news; which I believe
> is a popular feature on the wireless for any drivers who happen to be
> listening in

Generally after someone phones in because they are stuck.

You have ignored the people caught at the start of the jam who can go nowhere at
all. I suppose you think it doesn't matter as there aren't as many.
--
kat
>^..^<