Tesco bid moves forward as new railway footbridge is confirmed

“Unfortunately you seem to miss the rather basic point that your posts are all there for anyone who is very bored to read. So when I point out you are daft to claim that foot bridges "have to be wheelchair friendly now, its the law," anyone who can be bothered can see that is exactly what you said. No misquoting. No distorting. And no amount of complaining and subsequent attempts to rewrite history alters that.”

“Unfortunately you seem to miss the rather basic point that your posts are all there for anyone who is very bored to read. So when I point out you are daft to claim that foot bridges "have to be wheelchair friendly now, its the law," anyone who can be bothered can see that is exactly what you said. No misquoting. No distorting. And no amount of complaining and subsequent attempts to rewrite history alters that.”

“No, what we have is you continually trying to manipulate, misquote, and create arguments through continual lies to massage your ego; what it really says is that you are basically too thick to understand anything, and have no common sense.”

“So now we have gone from

"they have to be wheelchair friendly now, its the law"

to

"the exemptions which apply are when they cannot physically make them wheelchair accessible due to specific site conditions"

to

"There are cases of where bridges won't go up where it is impractical or impossible to build them for disabled access because of lack of ownership of surrounding land, or it unreasonable or impractical through a number of reasons to procure such land, unreasonable cost cost being one. There are many others such as someone unwilling to sell land and Network Rail have no powers to compulsory purchase as local authorities do."

which is a remarkably long-winded way of saying it *isn't* the law, since anyone, as Network Rail have just done in the example I cited, can always claim that they don't have the budget to build a wheelchair-accessible foot bridge.

Well, at least you go there in the end. It's just a shame you made such a fool of yourself along the way.

As for your nonsense about references, no-one is asking for thousands of references, but if you are going to make grand I-know-the-law statements such as ""they have to be wheelchair friendly now, its the law," you'd be better off providing a more credible source than what lurks between your ears, as it has a very poor track record.”

“There is a requirement to do so, and it isn't an unqualified statement as it can easily be qualified if people want to delve into the subject and try to dissect the legislation and legal precedents which have led to this position.

There are cases of where bridges won't go up where it is impractical or impossible to build them for disabled access because of lack of ownership of surrounding land, or it unreasonable or impractical through a number of reasons to procure such land, unreasonable cost cost being one. There are many others such as someone unwilling to sell land and Network Rail have no powers to compulsory purchase as local authorities do.

You claimed I back pedalled, nothing is further from the truth, I clearly stated the general legislation, when we got a little deeper I clearly stated that there are a few exemptions as there are to any legislation, this is common sense to the majority of people. No law is totally binding as it can be changed, altered, or amended by a court setting a legal precedent in a specifically defined area or within a general area, which is why we have guidelines from which to work to. These guidelines cover these areas to account for a legal precedent.

This leaves the issue of supplying references, yes I could but as this is a public forum we have to take a balanced view; would people want to trawl through potentially thousands of pages of documents which include precedents, I doubt it. I am well aware that a planning application cannot be turned down because it cannot reasonable be made disability friendly, I am also aware that in the planning submission such reasons would be supplied as part of the planning application package, so decisions will be based on the supplied information.”

“Actually, what you initially said was an unqualified statement that footbridges "have to be wheelchair friendly now, its the law" with no independent reference to support your assertion.

And I pointed out that this isn't true, as here is a case of a replacement bridge going up that isn't: http://tinyurl.com/d5nsmxc

And you then wriggled and changed you claim to assert that they have to be wheelchair accessible unless "they cannot physically make them wheelchair accessible due to specific site conditions" with no independent reference to support your assertion.

And I pointed out that this isn't true, as here is a case where it is stated that the bridge could be wheelchair accessible, but they are building it without such access for purely economic reasons: http://tinyurl.com/baehunu

Spot the pattern?”

“Try looking at your posts and then what you write, I have already shown (and proven) you to be lying on several occasions, as have others.

When you actually read your posts you accuse me of making proclamations, when all your post is, is proclamations' the word hypocrite always springs to mind, then the usual lies about my friends and neighbours. Do you know me? do you know them? the answer is no so why lie about who I know and who I don't, particularly as I know a lot of people, some of whom I would prefer not to know.

Once again your twisted persona appears with another proclamation which totally misrepresents what I said:

"Always entertained by the sound of smshogun backpedalling when caught out inventing laws yet again. So now all footbridges have to be wheelchair accessible, except when they don't. Glad we cleared that up.

What I actually stated was:

Joe, unfortunately they do have to make them wheelchair friendly, the gradients are recommendations; the exemptions which apply are when they cannot physically make them wheelchair accessible due to specific site conditions."


So once again you have to resort to the ever predictable tactics of claiming I stated something | clearly didn't, then resorting to a cacophony of lies when you get caught, basically the tactics of a psychopathic personality.”

“Always entertained by the sound of smshogun backpedalling when caught out inventing laws yet again. So now all footbridges have to be wheelchair accessible, except when they don't. Glad we cleared that up.

Unfortunately, of course, his latest pronouncement is still complete humbug: as you can see from this article, http://tinyurl.com/baehunu , where the absence of disabled access is driven not by "the specific site conditions," but by the economic argument that they don't have the funds to make the new bridge wheelchair accessible. The fact that Network Rail "said disabled access could be included at a later date, though it made no commitment that this will be done." clearly shows that there is no fundamental reason why disabled access is not possible on this site.

As for you accusing me of lying, on each occasion I have provided a piece of documentary evidence to support what I said to rebut your latest nonsense, and you have provided precisely nothing, apart from shifting unsubstantiated assertions.

But do keep digging: I enjoy your buffoonish thrashing around as you sink ever deeper into a mire entirely of your own making because you seem to think that anyone will be impressed by
your supposed command of the legal system, which in reality fails to stand up to the slightest inspection.”

“And from the site psychotic and proven liar, more reverse psychology and unsubstantiated claims and even more lies; you really need to get psychological help.”

“Joe, unfortunately they do have to make them wheelchair friendly, the gradients are recommendations; the exemptions which apply are when they cannot physically make them wheelchair accessible due to specific site conditions.”