> Oxford’s congestion charge is almost certainly enforced by cameras that scan your number plate. An ox-drawn cart doesn’t have a number plate, so it won’t be charged. Other vehicles like a Renault Twizy or Reliant Robin do have number plates, so they’ll be charged even though they’re technically exempt.
So there's not much to it: Plates are scanned -> the number is checked in the vehicle registration database -> not class M1(a) or class M1(b) -> no charge.
This goes for ox carts, Twizys and Reliant Robins.
Also you definitely wouldn't want to treat the Isis (or the wider Thames) because it's a full-blown ecosystem, I doubt the fish would appreciate us pumping it full of chemicals as well as sewage.
Therefore since we know there are oxen and they are not in London (even in Oxford circus) they must be in Oxford.
Nothing suggests it would have been free — in fact, if I owned a ford (a shallow crossing point) running through my property, you can bet I would charge for it.
... but you can't make him drink, is what I thought you were going to say.
Giving credit for the tree and taking it away when it is burnt is another choice. It shifts the focus to short term effects over long term ones. Which has both pros and cons.
Ok but ... that definition makes not a whole lot of sense, right?
The only thing that should be considered is CO2 in the atmosphere / troposphere.
Fairly irrelevant when it comes to cattle though, as it's the methane that's the problem there.
No, methane is a human-originated problem, and hand-waving won't change that.
Soya's actually quite a good example because something like 80% of the mass of soya grown is only suitable for cattle feed, and we need to grow insane amounts of it for human food because it has basically no nutritional value for humans.
What are you going to do with all that? Pile it up and let it rot, emitting huge amounts of carbon dioxide and methane?
Apparently it doesn't count at littering.
Also in Newcastle Upon Tyne I believe you are allowed to take yoru sheep to eat from the grassland in the city center too.
This is a myth, incidentally.
What is true is if you go to London you can see the boundaries of the city of London which are a set of cast iron dragon markers you see around and about on all streets marking the ancient boundary between Westminster and London.[3]
[1] Weirdly this was true even when Queen Elizabeth was the monarch. She was the Duke of Lancaster, not the Duchess. Apparently a female spouse of a Duke is a Duchess but if it's you and you're female then you're the Duke. I don't make the rules. https://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Grosvenor,_7th_Duke_of_We...
"So the reality: it’s a hyper-powerful, weirdly structured local authority with its own capital pile and special roles in policing and court infrastructure, but it does not legally own the country’s wealth or sit outside UK jurisdiction."
Not true; no source given.
> weirdly structured local authority
It's true that the City of London Corporation is structured differently from other local authorities, for historical reasons.
> with its own capital pile
It's unclear what this means or why it's significant. The City of London Corporation certainly has money, but so what?
> special roles in policing
The City of London Police is a separate police force from the Metropolitan Police. Really this fact is no more remarkable than the fact that the Sussex Police is separate from the Greater Manchester Police. Different parts of the country are policed by different police forces. In any case, the UK doesn't have the same kind of localized police jurisdiction as the US. An officer of the City of London Police could arrest you outside the City of London, and an officer of the Metropolitan Police could arrest you inside the City of London. So there is no particular significance to the fact that the City of London Police exists as a separate entity. It enforces the same laws as any other police force and has the same powers.
> [special roles in] court infrastructure
I googled this, but all I could find was an article explaining that the City of London Corporation has funded some new court buildings and police headquarters. This does not seem unusual to me. Indeed, people might justly complain if the City of London Corporation didn't spend any of its substantial wealth on local infrastructure. What is the 'special role' that you are referring to here?
In short, your comment is just insinuation. The Corporation is 'weird' and has 'special roles', etc. etc., but you don't actually point to anything specific that's at all sinister.
> "herbage right" means the full right and benefit of herbage vested in the resident freemen and widows to graze cows on the Town Moor;
Source: [Newcastle-upon-Tyne Town Moor Act 1988](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1988/31/pdfs/ukla_198800...)
The terminology is self explanatory. Therefore it does not need any further explanation even for legal purposes. Also generally smart ass workarounds don't work with the magistrate and/or courts.
"Mechnical" gives "Of or relating to machines or tools."
"Machine" gives "A device consisting of fixed and moving parts that modifies mechanical energy and transmits it in a more useful form." and "A system or device for doing work, as an automobile or jackhammer, together with its power source and auxiliary equipment."
An ox & cart fits the bill for "machine" with that lens. Not sure it's a smart-alec workaround, any more than the likes of McVities arguing the biscuits vs cakes in court for Jaffa Cakes. Anything not defined is fair game.
> An ox & cart fits the bill for "machine" with that lens
No it doesn't. I don't think you thought this through. The cart itself cannot do anything without something else acting on it. An ox is obviously not mechanical (it being an animal) which is what is propelling the cart. Therefore it is not mechanically propelled.
If it was a person a bicycle then would be more ambiguity. But it is commonly understood that a bicycle (excluding e-bikes which are mopeds) is not a "motor vehicle", because it is propelled by the rider.
At the same time, an individual person being blown forward by a sufficiently large fan might meet the qualification of "mechanically propelled" without being in a mechanical conveyance per se.
But more generally, a vehicle plus a motor of some description would seem to meet the definition. ICE, steam, electric, spring-wound, whatevs.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/232514895-the-bovadium-f...
which is a hoot, esp. when paired w/ his _Mr. Bliss_.
1: steer calf is born from cow
2: calf gets his goolies cut off turning him into an ox
3: ox eats grass, burps and farts and shits it out on both ends. Some of his shit ends up as fertiliser for the grass he or one of his fellow bovines eat
4: eventually ox gets eaten
The input: grass -> cow -> oxen
The output: oxen -> shit -> grass
From grass they came, to grass they return. If someone were to be so kind as to shrink bovines down to, say, bumblebee-size it would be easy to do an experiment with that in one of those glass-sphere closed ecosystems. I'm pretty sure they'd thrive.
I recently found out that my state university has livestock stalls for rent for student use. My daughter is considering attended and asked if she could take her sow with her. She said they didn’t even react like it was an uncommon request!
tt_dev•2mo ago
They looked at the law, saw “motor vehicle” and said that an ox cart doesn’t have a motor so should be fine.
tylerrobinson•2mo ago
immibis•2mo ago