Inb4 the shipping containers mysteriously go on fire

They’ve painted over breezeblocks, I would give my left kidney if this had building control approval, never mind insulation.

MDF walls separating the (presumed) bedroom from the kitchen, which is in the way of egress, doesn’t seem to have a fire alarm or fireproofing, next to a breezeblock wall painted without being primed or treated…

Are you saying it’s well appointed because there is a nice £80 breakfast bar and chairs from B&M? Or is it the IKEA light fitting and matching displays drilled into the MDF catching your eye? Maybe the cheap laminate floor? Or is it the leaky ceiling?

Considering the whole thing was Mac’s idea, it’s a bit harsh Ryan gets all the credit because he’s more famous.

I think what she’s saying is that pegging is totally fine

Hey now that’s not nice, he might have thumbthing wrong with him

/Booed off stage

I would absolutely love this to happen. Fuck everything about people who think they can get away with destroying historical buildings for the sake of a quick quid. I hope his holiday sucks.

I knew someone who lived in a rented bottom floor flat in a converted house with mould like this. She scrubbed the walls more or less every day, tried every product under the sun, had dehumidifiers running when she could afford the extra power draw… but the mould bloomed through the paint again so quickly it made essentially no difference to the air quality, and little to the stains that developed. The landlord would paint over it every once in a while and acted as if they were doing her a huge favour by doing so.

Oddly enough, once she could afford to move out her unexplained health issues improved immensely…

Sorry that became a very big rant.

TL;DR cleaning the mould religiously doesn’t necessarily stop it from looking like that after a while

Projection is a helluva thang.

🤣🤣

You never asked me that question, and it’s nothing to do with what I was talking about (the law behind what constitutes being in control of a vehicle), soooo… I guess you really are just being disingenuous! Like I said, when you twist reality like this there is no merit to others engaging with you, so I’m outta here!

If you had actually read it, you’d understand that the extenuating circumstances (aka suspicion of drink driving) are what makes those decisions exceptional.

If you had actually any understanding of case law, you’d know to read the full decisions.

But since you’re clearly just perpetuating nonsense, I myself will discontinue arguing with it.

It’s entirely about determining when you are, or not, driving. That’s why the course went to the House of Lords for a determination. This precedent establishes that “driving” can include when you’ve stopped and gotten out of the car, assuming that you intend to continue your journey

That’s not what the House decided at all. If you’re going to misquote and misconstrue law and disregard the actual decision points there isn’t really much merit for anyone else to discuss it with you. Like I said before, maybe you should actually read the case law and decisions lest people think you’re deliberately perpetuating falsehoods and not simply missundertanding.

See my previous comment: are you going to actually answer my question? Whether or not you think my statements are unreliable doesn’t matter.

You didn’t ask me a question? I’ve read through all your replies to me and none contain a question, are you confusing me with another commenter maybe?

Perhaps you should read the case law you’re quoting, because the exceptional circumstances are quite well laid out.

It’s legal precedent

When there is suspicion of drink driving. Editorialising facts serves nothing other than to make your statements seem unreliable.

Maybe you should have included the entire quotation:

However, although the House of Lords in Pinner v Everett held that a person might still be driving even when they turned off the engine and got out of the car it is unlikely, other than in exceptional circumstances, to be appropriate to use section 41D to prosecute any person who in these circumstances made a phone call or accessed the internet

I’ve bolded the parts you accidentally skipped when quoting, maybe next time quote a source that isn’t disagreeing with you?

You’re really proving my point, thanks!

I bet you’re fun at parties.

Under the law, if you pull into a lay-by, stop the car, turn off the engine, remove the key, and leave the car to take a phone call, you can still be charged and found guilty of using a phone “while driving”.

You got a source for this bit of rhetoric?

Edit

TL;DR of the responses is that they do not indeed have a source that verifies this. Colour me shocked.

I can’t decide if being on acid in that bathroom would be amazing or terrifying