I may be able to get a bit of cake at the library

[oldr_n_wsr]

‘Caution Please Be Aware Of The Falling Acorns’.

I am getting a lot of acorns this year, sign of a harsh winter.
I've been hit with a few when I'm out in the yard. I should put a sign up.

[Gob]

Does it matter?

Only if the truth matters.

Of course, we already know the answer to that where the Daily Mail is concerned.

Be better if you used Mail articles to discuss the issue rather than the minutia though.

But it's a free world, and it seems to keep you entertained..

I am getting a lot of acorns this year, sign of a harsh winter.
I've been hit with a few when I'm out in the yard. I should put a sign up.

You wouldn't want to end up suing yourself for injury and distress caused by falling acorns.

[Scooter]

Discussing an issue using a Mail article (those that have been chosen to be posted, at least) as a starting point is like discussing politics or economics with Steve; the lens through which the issue is being viewed is irreparably distorted.

You want to discuss ridiculous H&S regulations, fine, but don't premise the discussion on an article which states that a woman was forced to remove a picture from a wall in her home because it might fall on a firefighter, when neither of those was true. How is one supposed to have a rational discussion on said H&S regulations when the entire foundation of the incident has been falsified?

Would it have been stupid to require this woman to remove a picture from a wall in her own home because it might create a hazard for others? Of course. Would it have been stupid to require this woman to remove a picture from a wall because it might have fallen on a firefighter? Of course. Except that neither of these things happened. Does the removal of the picture make more sense when it is known that it was hung on a wall in a common area where it was in a position to fall onto a staircase that would be used for evacuation of other residents? Of course it does.

What you call "minutia" is what makes the difference between making the actions of the wardens appear to be the product of too many mind altering drugs, and making them appear to have some sort of rational basis. Now, you may consider their reasons insufficient to justify removal of the pictures, but there is clearly logical thought and legitimate concern for safety behind the action they took and their reasons therefor. Unlike the version of their actions and reasoning as it was presented in the article.

[Gob]

The article stated that the picture was removed from the walls of this woman's residence due to H&S issues.

Which was true.

It was confirmed in other news paper reports.

Any rational person who took the issue, rather than the article as a point for debate, would have come up with something more useful than nit picking at the way it was reported, rather than the issue itself.

You have, in this and other threads, taken the reporting, rather than the issue, as your hobby horse, if you want other issues to be debated, then please start the threads.

The Mail is contentious and will exaggerate things to make points, we all accept that, it;'s only you that is hung up on the reporting rather than the issues.

[Scooter]

The article stated that the picture was removed from the walls of this woman's residence due to H&S issues.

Which was true.

It was not true. It was not removed from her residence. It was removed from a wall in a common area outside of her residence i.e. the same as if I had decided to hang a picture in the lobby of my condo building, rather than in my own suite.

I am happy to continue pointing this out as long as you continue to lie about it.

Any rational person who took the issue, rather than the article as a point for debate, would have come up with something more useful than nit picking at the way it was reported, rather than the issue itself.

The article was being used (by you) as a frame for the "issue". Is it my fault that the way in which the article was distorted. did not serve to illuminate the "issue" in the slightest?

In what universe would the substance of the debate on an "issue" remain unchanged when the underlying premises have been so decisively demolished?

You have, in this and other threads, taken the reporting, rather than the issue, as your hobby horse, if you want other issues to be debated, then please start the threads.

And when the reporting completely undercuts the "issue" being discussed, as in this case, what then?

And thanks for the advice, but I will post where and when and how I please so long as what I am saying remains germane to the thread in question. If you cannot deal with the fact that your sources are so easily impeached, and that you have been shown to have jumped to conclusions based upon completely false premises, then take it up with your shrink. If you post an article and rely on it to make your argument then I am going to comment on that article as I see fit.

The Mail is contentious and will exaggerate things to make points, we all accept that, it;'s only you that is hung up on the reporting rather than the issues.

If by that you mean that only I am interested in discussions based upon fact and not fairy tales, you may very well be correct, I don't know; unlike you I don't purport to speak for anyone but myself.

[Andrew D]

The article stated that the picture was removed from the walls of this woman's residence due to H&S issues.

Which was true.

It was not true. It was not removed from her residence. It was removed from a wall in a common area outside of her residence i.e. the same as if I had decided to hang a picture in the lobby of my condo building, rather than in my own suite.

This dispute is entirely picayune. Unless the circumstances of this particular case greatly depart from what is usual (and I have seen nary a hint of evidence of that), a resident in a building which has common areas does have an ownership right (or some ownership rights) in those common areas which right(s) is/are not shared by people who do not live in the building (or have some other ownership right(s) in the building, such as an absentee landlord).

Even though this person does not have exclusive ownership of the common areas, she does have some form of ownership of the common areas. Thus, it is entirely reasonable (though not anal-retentively accurate) to refer to the common area where she hung the picture as "hers" -- except, of course, in the context of parsing out the rights of the various persons who have ownership interests in the building -- just as it is entirely reasonable (though not anal-retentively accurate) for me to refer to the house in which I live as "mine" even though my wife and I actually hold title to it as community property.

[Scooter]

First, she is a tenant, so she has no "ownership interest" whatsoever in the common areas of the building. She certainly has a "right of use" of the common areas of the building within the bounds that are consistent with it being a common area. It is precisely what those bounds are that is at issue here, and muddying the water by parrotting "she is being prohibited from hanging a picture in her own home" makes it impossible to have a reasonable discussion about what those bounds should be. The distinction is not "picayune" at all; it is precisely because a common area (in this case, a wall at the top of a staircase) is used by ALL residents of the building, and is not for the exclusive use of one tenant, that different health and safety standards come into play. In particular, in this case, that a staircase should be free of potential trip hazards especially in the event of an emergency evacuation. And it is not a stretch by any means to foresee how this picture could turn into a trip hazard in such circumstances, and cause someone to fly headlong down the stairs.

[Gob]

Utter shite.

It's nit picking on peripherals as you do not like the paper it was reported in.

[Andrew D]

Even if her interest in the common areas is merely a "right of use," it is still an ownership interest. As a tenant, she owns a leasehold. Whatever right(s) concerning the common areas is/are part of that leasehold are necessarily ownership interests.

Anyway, the fundamental point is the utter triviality of the matter. Surely the relevant authorities have more serious problems to deal with than a picture hanging on a wall. And if the problem is that the picture might become a trip hazard, how about she just bolts it to the wall? That should be the end of that.

[Gob]

My point exactly.

[oldr_n_wsr]

As a former "volly" (volunteer firefighter) I can say that we inspected many a rental unit and were required to remove any kind of blockage or impedement to the safe evacuation of the people living there, pictures included. Don't remember if we ever had to take down a picture, but I doubt that if it was bolted to the wall it would have been taken down. Trouble is, most people would just put a nail in the wall and hang it on that. Bolting it to the wall is out of most peoples "skills" and the fire department would not hang the picture. However I am sure we would have tried to find the owner and advise them of the requirements and given them back their picture.