Ummm. I rather think you started it 😉

Ummm. I rather think you started it 😉

Oh, is he a newbie mamil a slightly sensitive to negative comments about his tribe?

The perils of the internet: I was actually replying to him rather than you, but chill anyway

Oh, is he a newbie mamil a slightly sensitive to negative comments about his tribe?

QED.

Didn’t see this thread going anti bike.😳

I’m now waiting for someone to say they ride an ebike to the cafe then it can truly go thermonuclear.😁

Didn’t see this thread going anti bike.😳

I’m sure you’ve been here long enough to realise that it ALWAYS goes anti-bike.

^^ I didn’t want to say but…. 😉

It’s not gone anti-bike, it’s gone anti-selfish-dickheads-who-ride-bikes

There’s a difference that is frequently missed! 😉

I’m now waiting for someone to say they ride an ebike to the cafe then it can truly go thermonuclear

Nah, e-bikers prefer to sit around drinking coffee and talking a good ride at BPW.

A cafe in Berkshire just doesn’t have enough pose value for their Instagram account followers.

https://www.cyclinguk.org/news/velolife-update-council-refuses-answer-key-questions-over-absurd-cycle-ban

Reading cycling UK interpretation, surely way ahead is trigger point 4? Obviously cafe will need legal/ financial support, but making council go to court to enforce unreasonable injunction would make formal legal challenge and have the council exposed for its lack of process and muppetry?
(not a lawyer so could be bobbins)

As I understand it planning permission protection for pubs only came in on 23rd May 2017, In 2016 change of use from A4 (drinking establishments) to A3 (restaurant and cafe) was permitted development if notified in advance.

I guess that by waiting until 2017 to make a fuss the council forced the new rules to apply to a retrospective application (retrospectively asking permission for something that didn’t need permission at the time). That seems very fishy to me.

I can’t remember where I read it, but I think the Cafe owner applied for a Certificate of Lawfullness, ie, confirmation that it was permitted development, and was refused. On appeal, the Inspector granted permission, subject to the controversial condition.

The Injunction has been referred to as a ‘draft’ injunction, but I think it may actually be an ‘interim’ injunction, ie, it has to be complied with until the hearing. The interesting point is that if the court doesn’t confirm the injunction, the council would be liable for damages (although whether there has actually been a loss of business may be hard to judge)

I can see it falling over to be honest.

Courts *hate* injunctions. They’re usually incredibly difficult to enforce unless it is something very obvious (eg: Mr X must not contact his ex-wife by any means; the newspaper must not print any story about Mrs Y). Those ones are fairly easy to prove in court that he phoned her / that a story was printed and therefore breached the terms of the injunction.

Problem is that it needs to be spelled out and so far RBWM haven’t actually spelt out what they mean by “cyclist meet”. So you can’t enforce an injunction when it’s not clear what the terms of it are – what constitutes a “meeting”?

A surprising number of council legal departments operate in this slightly grey manner – they hope that the “threat of legal action” is enough to make the average member of the public go “oh dear, I’d better do as they say”.

I still think it’s major breach of protocol from the council – if everything about the complainant being a) the previous owner of the venue and b) a councillor is true then it’s conflict of interest. Somewhere on twitter was an unsubstantiated comment that the complainant had actually told the cafe owner that it didn’t matter what happened, he’d keep complaining until it was shut down. as I say though, no info to back that up so it could just have been rumour.

Problem is that it needs to be spelled out and so far RBWM haven’t actually spelt out what they mean by “cyclist meet”.

The other problem for enforcement is that the injunction only applies to the cafe owner. He’s not allowed to “permit, encourage, facilitate or arrange” use as a cycle meet, but that doesn’t stop somebody else arranging one. Is he then expected to ask every cafe customer “Are you part of a cycle meet?” and if so, to refuse to serve them and insist that they leave the building and the parking area. Is the owner liable if the customer replies, falsely, “no, I’m just out for a ride by myself”? It’s not enforceable.

Assuming he hasn’t done this already, surely he just needs to put up a big sign saying, “No organized bike meets permitted, violators will not be served.” Then make sure it isn’t blatantly violated and he’s done what he can.

Assuming he hasn’t done this already, surely he just needs to put up a big sign saying, “No organized bike meets permitted, violators will not be served.” Then make sure it isn’t blatantly violated and he’s done what he can.

No because the definition of an “organised meet” has not been made. Is it 2 people? 20? What if one group of 5 bunps into another group of 5 and they happen to know each other? Is that organised or chance (and can it be proved either way)?

Ayway, it seems there’s some further positive development:

Excellent Simon, thank you. So… 👇

Cycling groups (like any other group) may meet at the cafe organised or otherwise and, provided they behave responsibly, neither they or the cafe will be penalised for this?

And the council is no longer seeking any kind of injunction? https://t.co/zR7bXokekC

— Chris Boardman (@Chris_Boardman) August 24, 2019

There was of course that most excellent bit of legislation from the late 80’s spawned from the Poll Tax or raves IIRC whereby gatherings of 3 or more people were to be deemed illegal and very much subject to police interference.

Just invoke that one.

There was of course that most excellent bit of legislation from the late 80’s spawned from the Poll Tax or raves IIRC whereby gatherings of 3 or more people were to be deemed illegal and very much subject to police interference.

Just invoke that one.

It was 1994 (Criminal Justice Act) and would probably require said gathered cyclists to be listening to ‘repetitive beats’ whilst in attendance.

Repetitive beats.

Would someone demonstrating a creak from their crankset every revolution count.lol😆

all over: https://twitter.com/BritishCycling/status/1194986358382714883

We’re pleased to announce that @RBWM have today withdrawn their application for an injunction against @thevelolife

We all assumed it would end like that…

Awaiting the FoI requests to the council as to how much money they’ve squandered on this over the last 2 years.

If the complainant is who it’s alleged to be (local councillor) he should be sacked for misconduct in a public office.

Ummm. I rather think you started it

Did he invade Poland?

Dammit, i kinda wanted to see RBWM get laughed out of court.

Could use the crowd fund monies to launch a claim for loss of business or something?

Business apparently boomed on the back of this publicity, not sure there’s a loss to pursue.

Would like the council’s actions to be properly scrutinised. Local government ombudsman….?

What a waste of public money. Hope this bites the bitter bugger in his/her ass.

Whoever it was needs finding and a misconduct in a public office charge applied to them. (If it can be made to stick).