You seem to be all over the place again arborlad, jumping from one quote taken out of context to another.
I have already dealt with the question of water. It is, to all intents and purposes, the same as natural run-off which is NOT illegal. My neighbours are happy with the situation and there is no problem. It is only you that can't leave it alone Judge Arborlad.
You are also wrong in your accusation of me driving over my neighbours land. It is my land, not my neighbour's. Again, I have already told you, but, surprise surprise, Judge Arborlad can't understand that either. Maybe you should lay off the Campari for a while.
arborlad wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:40 pm
Rosenberg wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2019 7:00 pm
I've heard of "intelligence-led policing", if that's what you mean.
That's an interesting choice of words...
They aren't my words; this is a phrase dreamt up by the police themselves. I used it, as you know, to contrast with your style of assimilating facts where no intelligence at all is in evidence.
arborlad wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:40 pm
...the OP in that thread did the right thing by reporting it to the police and giving the details, if there's another incident involving a van with two occupants but no details, the police can join the dots and the scrotes will be apprehended more swiftly.
How can you possibly know what the police can, or can't do in a given set of circumstances - let alone what they would be willing to do? I can tell you from personal experience that it's unlikely to be much at all.
If the OP of that thread had reported the incident to the police, they'd probably just get fobbed off with "Sorry, it's not a crime." or "We can't record it" (despite their "evidence-led" mantra), or "We can't do anything about someone asking you the time." (If they didn't laugh in his/her face, they'd probably do so behind the desk.) Let me give you two real examples which illustrate the police's attitude when it comes to low-level crime (I'm not defending it; but it's a fact):
1. A neighbour entered my daughter's garden and chopped down three climbing plants which were growing up HER OWN fence. The cuts were made at ground level on my daughter's side of the fence. Police insisted it wasn't a crime because the plants would re-grow. One did, after five years. The other two died.
2. My cousin's son, a lad of 14 years, had an egg thrown at him from a moving car as he walked back from school. The incident was caught on CCTV, and reported to police, but they insisted that they couldn't record it as a crime as it would "wash out" of his school uniform. It didn't. I believe the real reason they wouldn't record it was that the CCTV didn't capture the number plate, so there was little prospect of identifying the perpetrator; and the police just don't want unsolved crimes - even minor ones - on their books. It's bad for the stats.)
And those are two instances of real
criminal damage, not just "Oooh, somebody from the lower classes spoke to me in my middle-class garden". That OP did not say that the people whom you judge to be "scrotes" had done anything worse that asking for casual gardening work and checking the time. The police would probably just tell her to go and put up another layer of net curtains to hide behind.
Morgan Sweet wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:54 am
Rosenberg wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 12:04 am
Arborlad, I am still waiting for an answer to the question I asked you 5 years ago. But you clammed up didn't you. I wonder why that was.
May I suggest Rosenberg, when dealing with any legal matters it is most important that you follow the accepted protocols. It is not (normally) the correct protocol to ask a question of a Judge and expect an answer, the predominant role of a Judge is to make rulings.
I will defer to my learned friend.
Collaborate wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:30 am
This is a message to Admin.
Is there any chance this thread can be locked? It's deviated so far from its original purpose it now seems to be the equivalent of two drunks squaring up to each other outside a pub, neither wanting to "leave it" and neither letting it die a natural death.
I've left this thread alone again for the last eleven days partly because it has diverged from the subject of quad-copters. In contrast, during that time, Judge Arborlad has continued to post - over and over again - on various other subjects at random. I guess that to a (ahem) 'legal professional' such as yourself Collaborate, the thought of a drunken judge shouting at shadows in a car park must be a bit of a disturbing thought.
Perhaps I can help by paraphrasing one element of your post: "Leave it Judge Arborlad. It ain't worth it!"