home  bbs  files  messages ]

      ZZUK4448             uk.legal.moderated             12811 messages      

[ previous | next | reply ]

[ list messages | list forums ]

  Msg # 312 of 12811 on ZZUK4448, Tuesday 9-22-25, 1:14  
  From: ROGER HAYTER  
  To: JNUGENT  
  Subj: Re: Projecting images onto buildings - w  
 [continued from previous message] 
  
 >>>>>> A much more fruitful approach might be to look at the fact that 
 >>>>>> generally 
 >>>>>> you need to be on public land to pull of such an event, and that is 
 >>>>>> probably already covered by a mountain of laws, by-laws and 
 >>>>>> regulations 
 >>>>>> that any number of agencies are able to enforce. 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> As I said, both in the original post and this one, it is covered by 
 >>>>> planning 
 >>>>> law. The specific problem is that planning law is entirely toothless 
 >>>>> against 
 >>>>> this kind of very short-term projection, as it will never reach the 
 >>>>> threshold for prosecution. Which means that people can use 
 >>>>> projectors in 
 >>>>> this way with total impunity. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> Which may of course have been Parliament's intention. 
 >>>> 
 >>>>>> We really don't want to go down the US route of banning ideas - which 
 >>>>>> they have just done. Because it can make you look a bit stupid. 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> It's nothing to do with banning ideas. Just addressing a loophole which 
 >>>>> allows people to circumvent the law for the purposes of advertising. 
 >>>>> What 
 >>>>> they are advertising has nothing to do with it. 
 >>> 
 >>>> It still has to be 'advertising'. 
 >>> 
 >>> Have you looked up "advertise"? 
 >> 
 >> Yes.  Have you looked up my previous post on its meaning?  With 
 references. 
 > 
 > I don't need to. I am well aware that the word was not invented in 1955 
 > with the coming of ITV. Shakespeare used it. 
 >> 
 >> Perhaps you'd say why you think the police took no action under what you 
 >> are arguing, but under a completely different head. 
 > 
 > If they had a better basis for proceeding, all the better. I'm not 
 > complaining. 
  
 They certainly had no basis for proceeding on the basis of advertising 
 without 
 planning permission - it would need a planning decision and enforcement 
 action 
 by the council department first! 
  
 -- 
  
 Roger Hayter 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2) 

[ list messages | list forums | previous | next | reply ]

search for:

328,120 visits
(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca