![]() |
|
|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#5 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,237
![]() |
I suspect people have jumped to conclusions and not read this properly. The council is obliged to investigate a complaint. That's it. There hasn't been any judgement at all, which may well end up being that the complainant is out of order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 (permalink) |
|
Uber Member
|
Some things shouldn't get past the first phase of
Is this complaint ******* stupid or not?
__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Lib Dems |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 (permalink) | |
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bienne, Switzerland
Posts: 494
![]() |
Quote:
be, but surley common sense must prevail. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,237
![]() |
Hopefully it will, but it is clear in the report that they haven't done anything yet. The time to criticise is when they do something and it is wrong.
As far as this complaint not getting past the first phase of 'is this stupid?', well in order to answer that, you have to make a judgement. Without making any investigation at all, the judgement is based on assumptions. You assume that the complainant is wrong, the smokers within their rights. That may be completely correct, but you've dismissed out of hand the possibility that the complainants could have any grounds. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
This site is owned and operated by MyCartel Limited © 2007. Hosting: BookFizz.
This site supports Label My Food and Politigg
My latest commercial site: Cell Phone News 2.0 - [Mobile version]