dulwichbloke

Macroban, I'm afraid neither of those points is correct. Your point 1 ignores the fact that given the existence of the sign (on the assumption there is one, as has been suggested) the would-be donor has actual knowledge that his or her 'gift' is nothing of the sort, but is the simple dumping of goods (rather like fly tipping, if you like). There is no legal principle that I am aware of that means the title of the goods the subject of the failed gift will remain vested in the would be donor when the donor knows the gift if will fail at the time. It's not like we are in resulting trust territory here! As for your point 2, using a long legal sounding word (but not in any meaningful way) don't make it right! The fact that the dumped goods might have been over the boundary line (which I assume you were trying to suggest?) is irrelevant to ownership, if the owner of the land has expressly refused to take ownership. It's like someone else on here was saying - just because someone dumps a load of rubbish in your front garden it doesn't make you the owner.

Domitianus - You are wrong - It is not a matter of 'possession' as you say. Nor is it a matter of the intention of the 'donor' alone - that's like saying it only needs one person to intend to make a contract (which would be wrong). If I don't want to accept a gift, save in a particular manner and I communicate that to the would-be donor, then if that person later ignores my wishes and purports to make the 'gift' anyway, ownership does not pass to me. Now that is elementary law!

macroban - That submission from any prosecutor would make for an interesting hearing! If the stuff is dumped with knowledge that it was not being accepted in that form as a donation, it is being dumped. I can't see how the person dumping the goods would retain any form of title. On your analysis, the person who dumped the stuff could bring a civil claim against people taking the goods, in conversion - or even against the charity shop for breach of bailment if they negligently allowed the stuff to be nicked?! I somehow doubt that argument would fly very far.

No, my point being there was no owner (not simply that there is no knowledge of who the owner is). The Theft Act requires the goods to belong to another. If (and I don't know whether there is such a sign in this case) there is a sign that expressly or impliedly disavows ownership, there is no owner, therefore no theft.

I agree that ethically it may be doubtful, but I can't see how it could possibly be illegal. If the shop does indeed have a sign which effectively says that it is not accepting/taking possession of goods outside opening hours and the person dumping it plainly is no longer wanting to be the owner of the goods, then it is difficult to see how it could be theft as defined by the Section 1 of the Theft Act. Put simply, it is not "property belonging to another" (a requirement in Section 1 for the offence of theft). It is simply rubbish dumped on the street by the previous owner and belongs to nobody. If it was nicked from a donation box and there was no such sign, the situation would be different. The 'donor' is, however, probably committing an offence by littering.

This one is even better than the Osbourne Stewart plug. The self-serving detail and the slagging off of the competition is the best so far!

OP - "The guys who may have been responsible have been seen several times casing the area and they may be back" What is their description?

Brilliant! You couldn't make it up! Oh, wait a minute, he did.

On yer bike Horsebox! I'll get me car.

Sandperson - why do you think it is acceptable to get "angry" and "confrontational" because you nearly get injured (you didn't say the driver was deliberately trying to hurt you)? That sounds like road rage. Is it ok to be angrily confrontational because you are on a bike, rather than driving a car?

In your opinion! A minority could be what? 5%? 10%? 20%? Isn't that "so many" in the context of dangerous road use?

I must admit, the thought of an over-the-top aggressive cyclist getting put in his place, gives me a slightly warm feeling on a cold night! Obviously I abhor violence, blah blah blah... but I do think cyclists can be a serious danger on the roads. So many completely ignore basic rules of the road and put themselves and (more to the point) others in danger. If you were to dare to object to such road use, a torrent of abuse would all too often follow.

Oh and Engles ended with the following: "As for being lounged - what fun... that's not happened to me before. Watch out for the news everyone - cheers - Engles" Well, seeing as that was his or her first ever posting (at least under that name) it wouldn't have happened before would it? A comment about as reliable as the posting.

I I find it a bit odd that there's so much sensitivity on this site about possible defamation and/or prejudicing someone's criminal trial by publishing comment, yet someone posts a plainly defamatory rumour about Foxtons being in administration (which is obviously untrue, or we would have seen something about it in the press by now) without there being any concerns raised. It appears that Engles doesn't understand what administration is, but I'm not sure that would be any defence. I know many people don't like Foxtons much (me included) but I don't think that's a good reason for publishing false information about them!

Went there on Monday for lunch. It was ok and the service was friendly, but I have a few observations. The lunch menu omelette had a lot of cheese in it which was very strong and although I love cheese, it rather overpowered the other ingredients and all in all was a bit too rich. Also, if you have anything with poached eggs in it and you don't like very lightly cooked eggs, it is worth asking for your eggs to be cooked for slightly longer (unless Mrs Bloke's eggs were just particularly runny). I went to the loo and in my tired state got confused by the signs as to where the loo was and in a correspondingly lazy state just popped into the disabled loo (wrong I know, but there was no one else about and it was quiet in the place generally as they hadn't been open long!). Unless I just missed it, there was no blower to dry your hands on and the paper towel dispenser was empty, so I only had the old shirt (the one that I was wearing - not that there was one provided!) to dry my hands on. Given that it had only just opened, that was a bit surprising. As for pricing, the main courses on the main menu were not particularly cheap, so the food would need to be pretty good and next time I would expect more than my shirt to dry my hands on. Maybe it was just Karma at work for me having occupied the disabled loo? Will definitely try it again though, as it looks good inside and I want it to succeed as it is just down the road from me and ED needs a good Italian near LL.

The landlord would be contractually entitled to its rent when due and if it is in arrears also to seek possession. Can't see what's "greedy" about that - its not as if both parties didn't agree the rent to be paid (and when) in the first place! Landlords don't just impose whatever rent they like you know?! Beyond that, nobody except the parties and their advisers are likely to know the pertinent details, so I don't see how people on here can (validly) form such opinions. And I'm speaking as someone who doesn't much care for some landlords. Also, I know nothing about the details of this case. Would be sorry to see the place go though - notwithstanding all the ranting from the owner about the drains issue.

She came to my house in The Gardens yesterday evening and tried to pull the same scam about a dead mother at a hospital in North London. It was the same person who appeared a few months ago at five in the morning saying she was locked out and needed money for a locksmith. I pointed this out to her and told her to bugger off which she did but not before offering me ID (right!) nd telling me she lives at No 2A (which she plainly doesn't because I sked her to point out that house and she was very hesitant. I should have called the police, but I don't have much confidence they would show up in time to nab her and I was a little distracted with something else at the time. If anyone else has this scammer calling, please do me a favour and do what I should have done and chucked a bucket of icy water over her! Thanks.

Cheers. I shall do that and if poss attend the meeting next week.

I agree! This is the most absurd and dangerous junction I have come across in London and that is saying something. I have nearly had several accidents there (and seen many other close calls) trying to turn right onto Peckham Rye. When I am coming from the Lordship Lane direction I wonder whether the lights coming the other way are out of sequence. I know that people run red lights, but cars routinely come through well after the lights have turned red in my direction. Some fool has even seen fit to make it a box junction, which means it is nigh on impossible for more than one car for each lights change to (legally) turn right at rush hour. For 2 years now I have been meaning to write to someone about this, but just haven't got round to it and I'm also not quite sure where to write. I would have thought that the authorities must know how dangerous/difficult it is - after all the police must drive down there and turn right many times each day. Surely there will be a fatality there before too long?

SMG - I wasn't sugesting it was their fault - I have no idea who is to blame, which was the gist of my posting. I can't say for sure what I would 'do' next. However, I would certainly (at the earliest opportunity) check my legal position by attending at a solicitors which undertakes property law cases and presenting all the relvant facts/documents to them. Then I would consider their advice and if no progress was being made by common sense attempts at negotiating with other relevant parties, (which is invariably the best way of sorting such problems out) I would commence legal proceedings (assuming I were in the right) with a view to remedying the situation as soon as possible. I would do this quickly if my business depended on it and I had been advised I had a good case. I would seek and injunction and/or damages depending upon the facts/merits. I would also consider entering into formal mediation with the other parties through the court system, although that would require the consent of all parties to the proceedings. Such mediation can be effective and less costly than going to trial. G&B's blog suggested that no legal proceedings had been commenced. I suspect that any solicitor worth their salt would probably advise against posting accusations/laying blame on other parties on a public internet blog. But then again, I could be wrong

...although in many other contexts, (i.e weekly, when reading the NOTW) I do rather enjoy leaping to conclusions based on conjecture and hearsay/rumours!

LegalBeagle, I'm not sure that statements about who is legally responsible for remedying the situation are particularly helpful, or likely to be accurate without knowing all the facts. For example, much will depend on the terms of the lease and it is usually the tenant who is responsible for repairs (but that will depend on the terms of the contract - i.e. the lease). If the blockage is not in part of the demised premises, contrary to what you suggest, it does not follow that the 'landlord' would be liable. That presupposes that the 'landlord' is the same person who owns the land where the blockage is located. That may well not be the case and even if it were that is not necessarily conclusive. There may be some grounds for an action based on the tort of nuisance (for which interim, or other injunctive relief may be available) but the defendant in any such action may well not be G&B's 'landlord'. Without having all the facts available it is simply not possible (and even dangerous - because some may even rely on what you say) to say who is liable to remedy the problem. I note that in an early posting, the owner of G&B was laying the blame firmly at the door of a neighbouring business, not the landlord. The only thing that appears to be certain, is that we don't know sufficient facts to form a reliable view on the rights and wrongs of the problem. I hope it all gets sorted in favour of a common sense solution and to everyone's advantage (or at the very least to the advantage of the person who is, in fact, in the right and therefore the most deserving). However, as I have said before, I didn't think G&B's tactic of slagging off their neighbours in public was constructive, or necessarily fair or correct. I'm not knocking your opinion, which you are obviously entitled to hold, but I am urging caution on anybody before jumping to conclusions on partial facts.

It would be a sad loss and I hope it doesn't close, but I have to say, on one visit I found the owner to be quite rude and far from welcoming. I then read her ranting blog which seemed to me to be quite in keeping with my impression of her on that meeting. Some of what she was saying in her blog appeared to be contradicted by the other 'facts' and it really seemed to me to be out of order so far as the vitriol directed at her neighbour was concerned. The net effect of her rantings on me was to encourage me to shop at her neighbour (which I did over xmas) but not to go back into G&B (which I didn't over xmas). Having said that, I do like the place and the quality of the food and wine and would still be disappointed if it closed down. I just think that she has an extremely unfortunate manner in particular on the issue of her drainage. Her approach is short sighted and will not improve her situation.

Yep, I saw a load of different types on sale this afternoon at Dulwich DIY for about ?4.95, or thereabouts. They even had about 6 different types hanging up and switched on, so you could see what they look like. Might nip in tomorrow as one of my sets has just suffered their annual breakdown!

To make it clear... I didn't refer to the RSPCA to suggest I am an expert in this area - just to illstrate the fact that I am not the sort of person who doesn't give a sh*t about animal welfare!