Please please please:

Stop posting about it on here

Any good reason why I should about from being boring? (not obligatory for you to either read or participate incidentally).

I do actually want to test out by use of this forum if I am in fact wrong in my assumptions. You know? That old concept of argument and counter argument to test out an idea?

The definition of 'place of public entertainment' that you seem to be relying on only applies to Section 25 of the Act. It does not set the definition of 'public' for any other section in the Act.

funkynick, yep I know that, and said as much when I posted it, ie. its the only applicable reference to a definition of a public performance that I could find. Happy to be proven wrong, but I can't find any other suggestion anywhere in that act that provides that a public performance constitutes a radio in a closed work place, (i.e. not a public place). And that really is my point.

From what I've found PRS seem to take a scatter gun approach and try to draw everyone into the net regardless of any actual legal precedent. So far today I've found a case where they tried to get a shop assistant for singing a popular tune at work, a motor mechanic listening to the radio alone in his own garage, and so forth. If you read their correspondance carefully it is very well worded, and if you actually stump up and then find that you didn't need to they could claim that you did so vountarily, as they don't define anything anywhere, and don't actually say you have to. However, there is a very strong implication that you do, and that your world will come to a premature end if you don't.

The nearest parallel I can think of is these private parking companies that stick an invoice on your windscreen and try to pass it off as a penalty charge notice. When you get down to it they have little or no validity but there is a multi millon pound industry scamming people into thinking that they do. Legal?? Barely???

Heres another little titbit that I've dug up:-

Licences are needed from the Performing Rights Society (PRS) and /or the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society (MCPS). These two have formed an alliance but in a given set of circumstances you might need to talk to both. You may also need a license from the Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL).

From the FSB Forum

Anyone know if its true?

They have been doing this since 1914!

What scamming people? Then it is high time they stopped isn't it?

funkynick – Member
BB… Is this not the section that you should read?

Nope, I think the relevant bit is the bit where the act defines what constitutes a public venue as quoted above.

Not all radio stations that we can listen to – especially internet radio – is based in the UK; those based abroad (or on ships in the North Sea) will not pay a fee to the PRS.

Actually the PRS works in tandem with other nations organisations who also charge their radio stations at source, so in fact all of these are billed at source for what they transmit.

As posted at the top I have absolutely no issue with paying what is due. However, what the PRS are doing does appear to be playing fast and loose with the legislation and basically carrying out a scam. That is no more right than people pirating the works of the people that they represent, and in the long term it will do those people no favours.

i like your notions about what the law defines to you.

Swiss mate, read the thread. I've now repeated three times that I've quoted verbatim the Act quoted by the PRS as to what the definition of a public perfromance is. That is not my "notion" that is what the statutory instrument to which the PRS refer says in black and white.

Check for yourself here :-

Read this before spouting off

ourmaninthenorth – Member
Berm Bandit – the CDA doesn't make what cynic-al said wrong.

Presumably you also didn't read what I posted then?

The act is not consolidating previous acts, it is a new one, so supercedes what went before. The previous case law may well be relevant, but only if the new act doesn't supercede it. The definition given clearly does not apply to workplaces and restrooms unless they are from timne to time hired out for public performances. Do you see what I mean?

SO scam then??

You can see the wording which I copied directly from the act quoted in their letter in my previous post. How that applies to offices and warehouses beats me. The act is not consolidating previous acts, it is a new one, so supercedes what went before. The previous case law may well be relevant, but only if the new act doesn't supercede it. The definition given clearly does not apply to workplaces and restrooms unless they are from timne to time hired out for public performances. Do you see what I mean?

SO scam then??

They have actually tried to bill people for singing songs believe it or not! So thats not going to work.

Personally I think their letters are to say the least scandalous. For example this quote :-

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 requires you to gain permission from the copyright owner if you play music in public – i.e. outside the home.

The only applicable reference I can find in the act is this :-

Secondary infringement: permitting use of premises for infringing performance .
(1)Where the copyright in a literary, dramatic or musical work is infringed by a performance at a place of public entertainment, any person who gave permission for that place to be used for the performance is also liable for the infringement unless when he gave permission he believed on reasonable grounds that the performance would not infringe copyright. .
(2)
In this section “place of public entertainment” includes premises which are occupied mainly for other purposes but are from time to time made available for hire for the purposes of public entertainment.

That most certaionly does not define to me my office, workshop or warehouse!!

Incidentally, your Tootallness, the Act that the PRS are appertaining to in their letter to me is dated 1988, so I'm not too sure what a 1947 case relating to a previous encarnation of that act might have to do with the current act. But having read through it I can't see anything which makes my place of work comply with the two definitions given above.

it's just that sort of incisive and informed comment on stw that has me regularly touching cloth with laughter

Fair one, 😳 (Tony Simpson being one of my colleagues and a keen cyclist as it happens, so you can suck that turtle head right back in Swiss)

JY : I'm 54 and a life long cyclist. I have taken part in most disciplines with the exception of track. At club level my interest in road left me when I realised that the icons that I aspired to emulate were not in fact what I at first perceived them to be. In fact I could never aspire to be like them without taking drugs. Interest over. That seems like a perfectly reasonable attitude to me.

And before anyone starts to point to American rounders/runners etc., it did in fact kill off any desire to race/compete for the same reason. I became increasingly aware of the "win at all costs" menatility that many people display, and as a result I prefer to ride my bike with my mates and enjoy the crack rather than hoon about like behaving like an total arse to serve my ego.

Thus my comments regarding this poor fella who clearly lost sight of whats important in life and was consumed by a misguided concept of success.

And +1 for Adder's post above.

I didn't realise this was still going on, so I'm going to lob in a couple of late responses to some for Tj's earlier posts

Do you have specific expertise in cycle helmets?

Bit **** patronising TJ if you don't mind me saying so. Not at all up to your usual standard of argument. SO DO YOU?? You have enough to say as if you had written the book on it.

I keep saying that there is no good quality evidence of helmets reducing major head injury.

And as I keep saying you cannot prove a negative. Like the OP, who has had a major off which has involved a helmet ground interface. He will not be on any stats anywhere because NOTHING HAPPENED. If he had indeed split his coconut and the milk had run out then he would. So you can only prove from accident statistics that things do sometimes go wrong. You cannot prove when and with what frequency they don’t. You then choose to ignore or discount the copious amounts of anecdotal evidence that is commonplace on here. So that in a nutshell (sic) is the flaw in your arguments TJ.
In essence it is a self fulfilling argument.

So why are you commenting on something related to 'the dark side'?

Because Tony Simpson rather than being the iconic figure that he should and could have been is, sadly, merely an affirmation of my viewpoint on the subject.

Junkyard: So my opinion which is on topic and absolutely valid albeit not popular is a troll because you disagree with it? (Incidentally, who said anything about ignorance on the subject or is this another of your assumptions??)

Berm – he was doing what was the norm at the time. A bit like when smoking wasn't seen to be damaging to your health. I certainly don't condone any form of drug taking, especially in sport, but applying your 2010 morals to something that was normal in 1967 isn't reasonable.

Did you not watch it? His own team mate was stating that he had expressed to TS that he should stop doing it and train harder instead, sounds a lot from that like TS's behaviour was entirely typical right??

I'm actually applying my 2010 morals to something that is normal in 2010. It was cheating in 1967 and its still cheating now. It is also why personally I have absolutely no interest in the dark side. I'm not interested in watching a bunch of lab rats making your normal club rider look average. What enthuses me is genuine awe inspiring excellence, much like the guys in Marin County on the preceding programme last night.

Your sort of "well its alright because everyone is doing it" attitude is precisely why its endemic, and also for that matter precisely why this guy, (who by all accounts needed to learn some endurance riding skills and discipline) rather than resort to drugs died.

"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."

So you are judging Balding on her looks not on her skills or knowledge.

Yup, its a fair point, I am in fact that shallow!

In a visual and notouriously lightweight medium I think I might be forgiven for wanting bubble gum for my eyes surely??

Now that Gabby Pppppppppppppppppphooaw….. if it weren't for that fact that she married William Wallace I'd ……(fill in your own disgraceful ephitet)……

Shame that such an icon and such an obviously talented and determined guy turned out to simply be a cheat in the end.

Comfortable shoes!

The matter is not yet concluded, and although it now appears that the officer involved cannot be proved to have caused the death, It is likely that he will face internal disciplinary action and/or other legal action.

Just out of interest

Safety Tips

1) Do not Crash
2) If you must crash do not bounce on your head
3) If you must bounce on your head avoid hard and pointy objects
4) If you can't avoid hard and pointy objects protect your head
5) If you protect head avoid accidents where rotation might be a feature.
6) If you can't avoid accidents where rotation is a feature you're fecked.

Besdies that there are two major flaws in TJ's argument.

a) The implication that it is possible to choose how and when you crash.
b) That we, the great unwashed, presume that helmet will save our sad lives in every circumstance rather than just mitigate some of them.

The research that is so frequently quoted is fundamentally flawed, in that all of those occasions when a helmet had been worn and there has been no bad outcome are ignored. It follows for example that there will be little or no investigation of the incident with the OP because the outcome is not severe enough to warrant it. Whereas a serious injury or death will. Therefore it is relatively easy to arrive at the conclusion that having a fall when wearing a helmet often results in death or serious injury. Whereas the fact is that all of the incidents where that has not been the case and in fact the helmet has prevented that outcome by that very token go unreported and uninvestigated.

Regarding baiting, would it help if I added that it was racial and extremely provocative? Also there were a number of particularly nasty assaults carried out previously by the baitors on that same night.

The reality of that situation and the fact that the options available were extremely limited was not wasted on the judge albeit I may not have done the full content of what he said justice above.

I’ll give you an example

A few years back a black friend of mine got done for GBH. The story being that he was walking home after a night out and two white lads started baiting him and his two mates who were also black. It was an uncontested fact that my mate walked away on a number of occasions but the baiting continued. Eventually they boiled over, and my mate grabbed one of the guys and smacked him. Fortunately the fella tried to twist out of the way as the blow contacted with and broke the guys collar bone instead of his face. (He is a very placid, but enormously powerful fella)

They were advised to plead guilty by their brief, which they did.

On the day of the case these two muppets were up for a string of similar occurrences on the same night, all of which had resulted in them assaulting the people they were baiting, some of them very seriously. (Those two ended the day with custodial sentences for their other perfromances from that night, and were actually caught due to the incident with my mate.)

In my mates case he was given the minimum sentence available to the judge, that then left him with a criminal record for a violent assault. The judge criticised the brief and told him that he was a disgrace to his profession, and should have been aware of these other offences. He then apologised to my mate and his mates saying "however, as you have pled guilty I have no option but to ………"

Now surely, common sense has to play a part somewhere FFS??

Horrifying tragedy, but the man is right, it is too early to apportion blame.

Clearly the policy isn’t as blatant and obviously fraudulent as I first thought, so lets try another tack.

Here are some facts :-

1) The majority of Tory constituencies are rural
2) The majority of Tory voters tend to not need nor welcome “affordable” housing on their door step.
3) The majority of Tory voters do not welcome change
4) The majority of Tory voters believe in market forces
5) The majority of Tory voters are not in favour of State intervention

So here we have a policy which is superficially aimed at

1) Increasing the amount of Affordable Housing in their traditional heartland despite the fact that their own voters are likely to be diametrically opposed to the concept.
2) Encouraging a change in the makeup of rural communities via state intervention. (Remember here that market forces is what has caused the problem in the first place)

So clearly it’s a bit of an odd one.

So how does this marvellous big society system work?

Well apparently according to the Minister on the news this morning, they are talking about 80% of the local electorate needing to vote in favour of a development for it to bypass the normal planning system and go……. Wait for it …… into the planning system.

Its virtually impossible to achieve an 80% majority of the entire electorate in any system, besides whats the need for 80%? This government of all people should realise that you don’t even need a numerical majority to make your views count!! Surely if this policy were genuine all that would be necessary would be 50% of turnout (as opposed to electorate) plus 1. That’s how democracy works surely?

Think about it. It is the exact opposite of what they are saying it is. What it actually is, is a situation where you only need a combined 20% of the electoral register either to abstain from voting, or to vote against to stop any new development. It is definately not an exercise in social regeneration of rural England.

Yes, but it exists equally in all political regions.

No dispute with that. However, I don't think anyone else is dressing up a measure that is aimed at preventing affordable housing in rural areas from being built as the precise opposite.

For Example: I live in a staunch Tory rural constituency. As a village we own and operate our own facilites, such as playing field, village hall and so on.

We, (the duly elected community and parish councils) came up with a plan to redevelop the existing playing field, which is approx. half the recommended size for the number of bods using it. The development was on the outskirts of the village, had no impact on traffic volumes and effected a toal of 6 existing properties which currently over look the existing playing field. These properties were subject to an exceptionally generous compensation package that went from a full market price purchase of the property with an assisted move to a simialr property of the owners choosing through to an extremely generous one off payment for loss of view. The deal included a number of starter properties, tastefully designed and built to a high spec. From a village viewpoint, we gained a fully developed ready to use new playing field twice the size of the existing one, with all mod cons including all weather playing surfaces and so on.We also got on that site a brand new hall/sports barn/pavilion, car park, doctors surgery, (again current one is way too small), and the sum of £1,000,000 in a trust fund to pay for the ongoing upkeep and running of these facilities. To me that seemed like a better than OK deal

The outcome? The councillers were lucky to escape without being lynched!

Nimbyism is much more powerful than people seem to think on here. I am prepared to gurantee from my own expereinces that there is virtually no chance of any rural locality "benefitting" from this policy. The opportunity to build new start proeprties is likely to much better under the current system, where every new development has to include a percentage of affordable housing.

I think you are all missing the point. The chance of getting 80% of any population to vote one way is between slim and a lot less than that. In rural Conservative England the chances of an 80% majority of the population voting in favour of a development of affordable housing is about as much chance of Nick Clegg being taken seriously by Spitting Image.

This is the exact opposite of what is being presented and is a very thinly veiled Tory ploy for preventing rural development. Think about it.

If you read the plan the development still has to go through the whole planning rigmorole, there is absolutely no benefit in that context, so whats this actually going to achieve??

Would it help at all if I said they are envisaging a requirement for 80% of the local population to vote in favour? i.e. its the exact reverse of what they are touting.

Bloody hell, this was just a protest, they happen all the bloody time in London. It was a bunch of grumpy hippies

In response to Joe Marhsall: Sorry that is not correct there was a violent element at that protest, besides the Police….. (thought I'd save you the trouble). Not only that there is a long track record of anarchists using these meetings as an excuse to riot for some reason or other. Therefore the policing is reflective of that reality. I'm not in any shape or form saying that Tomlinson deserved what he got, or that the actions of the individuals concerned were justified, but I am saying that I am happy with the generality and proportionality of the outcome thus far. The matter is not yet concluded, and although it now appears that the officer involved cannot be proved to have caused the death, It is likely that he will face internal disciplinary action and/or other legal action.

Just like life there are all sorts of people in the Police force some good, some bad. What is different though is that in the Police your decisions will have outcomes way beyond those in most peoples jobs. What is also different is that their actions are routinely scrutinsied by independant external organisations. Generally I'm comfortable with that, especially when I don't want to do their job myself. Likewise I'm comfortable with those who abuse their position to face the penalties for theior actions just like everyone else has to. Thats does appear to be the case here.

Regarding Tomlinson, the investigation has taken a great deal of time and trouble to review all of the evidence, (not just that which suits a particular bias), and has come to a reasoned conclusion. Personally I'm on the side that says if something looks like its going to be trouble then its probably good sense to go the other way. Tomlinson didn't and to that extent, and perhaps due to his alcoholism put himself into harms way. Not right to die for that error of judgement, but definately didn't help himself.

Regarding Moat. There is no comparision. Mad, bad or sad, he has killed, maimed and brutalised viciously and without justification. Once more I don't want me or mine to have to deal with that, and I'm gald that there are people who are prepared to put themselves at risk to do so on my behalf. They will be fully investigated as a matter of course, which is also right and proper. Good luck to them, and I hope that they come away unscathed in every sense should they deserve to.

Ride a 29er rigid a lot. Originally had steel forks. Wrist hurtage did ensue. On advisement changed to carbon fibre forks and everything in the garden has been rosy ever since. Most people who try it can't believe how comfortable a wholly rigid bike can be. Do it!

Like I said whats one more spolit prick amongst so many? 😉

What's one more spoilt prick amongst so many ?

M.F. there is a huge difference between what you were at and what GM was at. You were getting it on with someone, GM was trying to get it on with absolutely anyone.

Just going back to the point above about his mental state, I would suggest that the cottaging thing is about a deal of low self esteem ironically enough, and the drinking and drugs is self medication, a VERY common sign that things aren't right within.

Hi from China.

Just to let you know that I'm not hiding.

Cottaging is generally the act of going to a known rendezvous such as a public toilet and engaging in sexual acts with a total stranger or even group of strangers. I happen to know becuase as a student I worked for a number of years in a gay pub. The practice is often frowned upon by gay men, as it does encourage a very negative reaction toward gay men in the straight community. Not to mention the fact that it has also led to a wholesale destruction of public toilets across the country. Think about it, how often do you see public places where the loo has gone? There is a reason.

Personally, I find GM particularly distasteful, due to his arrogance and failure to recognise that he has serious mental problems. However, I do also therefore recognise by that token that he is in trouble and in need of help. Just wondered whether anyone else might pick up on that fact….. apparently not and find it more progressive to stick the boot in and pick holes in the OP. Hurrah for the STW massif.

Anyway, currently enroute to find new and better places to get the shirt in a photo for the club shirt on tour thread elsewhere.

BB

PS: Met my first two openly gay men in Shanghai yesterday. Very funny guys wearing make-up and lip stick and holding hands in a shopping mall. Strong statement in a country where until recently that would have led to severe retribution. Now that I do admire!

BB – I can see my argument could appear contradictory……..
(oh, and I never said that he deregulated the banks so I am more than happy to agree with you there.)

I'll take that as being correct then …..ta

My cat will, when its in trouble stick its head under the sofa, and assume that because it can't see you, you can't see it. A deeply flawed outlook as its little furry backside can confirm. Its pretty similar with politics and the "when do things stop being Thatchers's/Major's/Blair's/Brown's fault. To pretend that policies carried out now won't have an impact 20 or 30 years down the line is sticking yer head onder the sofa. Think about it, for example, education. A change now impacts on a kid at school next year, its takes 10 -15 years to go through the system, then maybe another 10 for that kid to have a family and start to bring up their kid in the way they have been taught….. think obese/chav/selfish/unruly etc etc. I won't be around fortunately when the worst of what is happening right now hits, but I am still seeing the results of Thatchers depravity. We have yet to truly really see Blair/Browns legacy, but I bet it won't be as bad as people are trying to make out, and it'll be nothing compared to the current bunch.

Mefty, to quote myself…..

Whether he may have done if in power is another question, which does not alter that fact that it wasn't him

and to quote you….

the development of the City would have happened anyway and was not caused by changes in the regulatory framework. Although the abolition of exchange controls was critical.

Either changes in regulation didn't cause anything or they did. This quote simply displays how flawed and contra-DICK-TORY your argument is. (Sorry cheap shot, but couldn't resist it 🙂 .

My only point through all of this is that GB did not deregulate the banks, that was substansively done by the preceding Tory governments. How about you just accept that the truth is, regardless of how you duck and dive around it, still the truth?

I have to go as I'm off somewhere for a few days, so don't consider a lack of response on my part as acquiesence with your arguments…it won't be.

Grapefruit – A breakfast favourite, The large sharp but succulent grapefruit has a yellow skin and is about three times the size of an average orange. Much more sour than an orange and with a bitter tang too, the grapefruit needs to be fully ripe or alternatively a little sugar can be added.

Thats me down to a tee…. large, sharp, succulent…bitter tang, much nicer when a <ahem> little sugar is added 😉

bb – I have never regarded it as a catch all phrase for financial deregulation and I have never known anyone used it that way.

In which case you need to get out more frankly!

Its not a big issue, but heres a few random examples of its use in that way in the national press for you.

The Guardian
The Times
The mirror[/url]
The Telegraph

Like I said Thatchers lot de-regulated. Brown re-regulated ineffectively with hindsight.

If you want people to straighten out their facts, it would probably make sense to have a look at yours first.

Mefty, I think it would be fair to say that I don't need to respond to that as subsequent posts have done so admirably. For what its worth, the Big Bang originally was a reference to taking stockbroking away from physical trading floors and onto electronic screens. However, subsequently it became the catch all phrase for Thatchers De-regulation of the finacial institutions, which was supposed to lead to "loadsamoney" for all of us.

I have nothing to say on the rights and wrongs of that, other than to say that to accuse Brown of doing it is what is actually disingenuous, he clearly did not. Whether he may have done if in power is another question, which does not alter that fact that it wasn't him. He did try to reregulate, rather inadequately, but he did not de-regulate the banking system in any meaningful way by comparision with Thatchers lot.

Hopefully history will teach us which was right and which was wrong in their approach, but sadly it didn't teach us sufficiently well the last time!

The deregulation of the banks which was one of the causes of the recent recession?

"And I will be honest with you, Many who advised me , including not a few newspapers, favoured a regulatory crackdown… I believe that we were right not to go down that road"

**** me!! How many times do we have to cover this??????

Now then lest get it straight. The deregulation of the banks was called the Big Bang and happened during Thatchers presidency…. The re-regulation including the introdcution of the FSA was down to GB. He has admitted that with hindsight he should have done more in that respect, but was persuaded that to do so would export the Financial Industry to less regulatory states. That is why his success at persuading the G20 governments to act in one accord currently is so significant to the long term prospects of this country.

Now then you are entitled to think he's a cock, but try and get your facts straight will yer?? Incidentally while you are at it, try asking yer tory boy mates what they would have done other than bailing the banks out to stem the international crisis??

Also try asking yourself why no one is moaning about hospital waiting lists any more. Remember one mans 25% cuts is another mans child being taught to eat Turkey Twizzlers and we wouldn't want to go there again now would we?

Lots and lots of issues

1) Ball. Germany and Argentina have played a season with it as their leagues are sponsored by the manufacturer. Watch the game again and see how many times England over hit the pass etc., Definate issue IMHO
2) Selection: No injured and no off form players my arse! Ledley King, serial sick note injured shocker! Rio Ferdinand been injured and off form pretty much all season breaks in training shocker, John Terry head still up own arris shocker.. c'mon who is kidding who?
3) Repeating Mistakes: Any footy fan in England could tell you that Heskey, Wright-Phillips and Defoe are simply not good enough. They've proved it time and again, and shockingly they still aren't. Likewise that Lampard and Gerrard can't play togther. Carragher… threw his toys because he wasn't getting selected…. anyone consider the possibility that Sven was right?
4) Joe Cole: Has not been a regular for his club for some long time under several managers and has just been released after a long spell of injury and is definately not match fit. So a) why was he in the squad and b) why do the fans/press etc call for him to come on?
5)Dilettante syndrome: Frankly there are virtually none of these guys who are fit to wipe Major Phil Packers bum. Tired? … Pressure? Try doing a marathon when you are a paraplegic to sus out tired, try keeping a family going on £180 a week instead of £180,000….thats pressure!

Frankly the whole shebang was a cluster **** and needs a lot of heads to be rolling. Not just the usual sacrificial manager cull!

Twunts the lot of em…

Suffice to say my season ticket holder days terminated around about the time the Premier League was formed.