DJKillaQueen

That's right John. I don't know what happened in this instance....whether the cat suddenly ran out leaving the driver no time to react, or whether the driver could have avoided it. Whenever I see animals on or near the road I always slow down just in case. But I have seen drivers deliberately drive at crossing animals and on one instance a driver deliberately drive over a Mallard that was in the road on Peckham Rye.

Wow that is insenstive, and shows a complete lack of knowledge about cats as well. Accidents can happen to any animal or person. Tragic for the pet and for the bereaved owner on this occasion. Try telling parents never to let their children out of the house if they don't want them to have road accidents! Better than that, why don't you advise that none of us leave the house.

I use headphones if I take a call on the street. Then I can keep the phone in my pocket with my hand on it. Makes it much harder to steal.

I am so sorry to hear of your loss PofC. It sounds as though (from witnesses) that the driver knew they'd hit a cat. It may well have been an accident, but even if not, some sympathy and sensitivity would go a long way.

And premise licenses are a pretty standard thing and take a standard form. This is just a standard licence application.

Once again, an indivivual can contact the Motor Insurers bureau to obtain details of any vehicle in an accident with them. http://www.mib.org.uk/Motor+Insurance+Database/en/Motor+Insurance+Database+Information/Enquiries+via+the+UK+Information+Centre.htm It really is that simple to take action against another vehicle owner if you have the license plate and the vehicle is insured. If the vehicle is not insured, notify the Police.

I was entertained by it too but I did find Andersons performance a bit too forced. It was a very understated piece of acting and I am tempted to think drawn from Grabol's performance in 'The Killing' (if not by Anderson herself, by the director certainly). It seems to be de riguer at the moment for psychological drama thanks to successful recent dramas by the Scandinavians and French. Anderson is one of my favourite actresses in UK drama at the moment but something just doesn't work for me in this one (without really knowing why). My reading of it is that Stella's coldness is juxtaposed with the killers brutal coldness, a kind of paradox if you like, where the same emotional level can be seen in both forces for good and evil. It's clever, and something we see more often with male characters in drama. Stella's (force for good) character is not meant to be likeable, which breaks one of the fundamental rules of narative screenwriting. Maybe that's what leaves me personally uncomfortable. Having said that though, 'Dexter' for example, flips those rules entirely on their heads and works brillantly.

Thelma and Louise Taxi Driver Alien

The Waverley Arms has a licence til 1am on both Fri and Sat night. So it's not really an out of the ordinary application for the Ivy House to make.

Also go to the Motor Insurers Database online, where you can check if a vehicle involved in an accident with you is insured. It is free to use.

neilson99 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They've just committed a criminal offence by > driving off haven't they? Just call the police. My thoughts exactly. There can be any number of reasons why a driver doesn't hang about after an accident, such as being unlicensed, uninsured, over the limit etc, all of which mean that driver shouldn't be on the road.

That's a bit insensitive Ciaranm. The Ivy House backs onto people's houses so asking about 1am finishes at weekends is a valid question. 'Late Night Refreshment' on a licence BP is necessary for the serving of any food. I don't think the Ivy House is going to be anything like a takeaway to be fair. It is seeking to operate as many pubs do in the area by offering a menu for those looking to have a nice meal out in a pub. Most pubs locally seem to stop selling food around the 9-10pm mark, because that's often when diners cease to be ordering food in any kind of numbers.

No Rianoo they wouldn't. The law on commercial use CCTV is very clear and it is the responsibility of the premises to ensure footage doesn't fall into the hands of anyone but the Police or those directly involved or affected. It can be shown to relevant parties, such as victim etc and a hard copy can be provided. That hard copy can NOT then be published in the media or on the internet (which includes Stingrays post above). The Police have to follow a procedure set out in law and have valid reason for releasing CCTV images to the media. That is the law under the data protection act. And any member of the public can report a breach of those rules to the ICO. http://www.ico.org.uk/for_the_public/topic_specific_guides/cctv

'As mentioned, we do think that we have an image of the couple, which we caught at the Actress. We cannot tweet this out, or show it publicly, as CCTV rules do not allow us to (although it may well have been sent out from someone's personal account..).' This is a direct contravention of the data protection act which can result in prosecution.

That all sounds reasonable. I can see it from both sides. Residents don't want to be subjected to regular excessive noise, and at the same time a business needs to be able to function reasonably.

Residents have the option to object anyway (if they know about the application). A licence til Midnight is usual for licenced premises next to residential property and off high street. And it makes sense to say call last orders at 11 and let people drift off slowly rather than turfing everyone out at once. But at present, the building is not adaquately soundproofed either to justify music and bands playing til 1am on Saturdays, which is the only part of the licence that I can see local residents having a problem with.

But Huggers, whilst Enterprise were a determining factor on profitability, they had nothing to do with the number of people through the door and how much they spent. Where I would agree there is an advantage in being independent is the freedom to choose suppliers and to set pricing. Pricing could be the one thing that does give it an edge over other pubs locally, but then you have to sell more beer to make the same targets. It's a difficult thing to get right unfortunately.

Well Sue, you are one of those that posted, when closure of the Ivy house was announced that the business was turning around. Unfortunately the books at the time tell a different story with a brief max takings of 6k per week, well short of the new expected takings from the business plan. And an average takings of 4k (and we are talking bar takings here, not profit) even with all the music and comedy nights that were going on. Also raising money for the purchase of a hard asset (of value) is very different to raising investment for business start up costs. The hard asset is collatoral against any loans used to pay for it. Start up costs have no guarantor. People in the trade have steered clear for a reason. The figures would require 280 (approx no of shareholders) people spending ?45 in there EVERY week for it to make it's ?12,500 expected takings on food and drink. I've lived round the corner from that pub for 23 years. I think I know the area and the people in it well. It's going to be a struggle imo to achieve that EVERY week. Its best shot is an events pub. There is no sizeable trade outside of that. I will give my support by going there for a drink as often as I can.

But cctv can be useful when the persons might already be known to Police. You'd be suprised how many thieves already have criminal records and are known to local Police.

Yeah I find the Police attitude (if true) odd as well. I also think the venue should offer up the footage as a matter of course following an incident anyway. That would be good business practise and reassure the victims of crime that they care about the safety of their customers. And if the CCTV system is so poor that it's of 'no use' in low light, then change it for one that is.

Given my post above yours I think it is clear I DO understand what shareholders get honeybee. So please refrain from describing my understanding as confused at least (there is no evidence of that on this or any other thread). And as you rightly say the prospectus clearly explains how unlikely it is that any shareholder will see a return on their investment, and how any annual interest (tbd at an AGM) won't be more than 5% above the base lending rate and subject to tax. See? I do get it! My only discussion has been to question the projected profit levels of the business plan anyway...a valid discussion point (based on the previous history of the venue), and one to which only time will show the answer. And that doesn't show lack of support for the venue, juat a query about what kind of investment it would be (highly relevant in a share offer scheme of things). I do think the revenue estimates are optimistic (especially on food) and am left even less confident by the attitude of those who dreamt it up in their attitude to questions regarding them. But that is just my opinion and one on which I would be more than happy to be proved wrong a year down the line. I think it's a noble and brave idea, and it is my local pub and I would love to see it back open, but I just think that it's a pub that has struggled for a long time now and I don't see how suddenly, there is going to be the required custom to meet these targets. But like we have all said, time will tell.

My guess would be Fox that the shares are a part of the overall investment and I'm guessing dividends would be paid on annual profits, if there are any??? It's not clear to me though what percentage of profit would be given over to dividends and as honeybee writes 'We're going to issue statements of account to our shareholders over the coming weeks' the status of dividends hasn't been revealed to shareholders as yet. But I don't think many of those that have bought shares are too bothered by this anyway. The sentiment seems to be one of supporting the venture and giving it a chance over seeking personal investment gain.

Keeping CCTV for 31 days is impractical these days because most systems use hard disk recorders which would require a huge amount of hard drive to store that much footage. The average system can store seven to fourteen days continuous footage (at highest quality). Also transferring that footage to another storage format takes real time - i.e. an hours footage takes an hour to transfer so that's not a practical workaround either. With regards to lighting, the best cameras to use are those which switch to black and white night vision when the lighting level drops. The system in our Tenants Hall cost around ?400 to buy, holds seven days of continuous footage (at highest quality), and in pitch darkness reads heat, and as one young chap who broke in at the dead of night found out, lights people up like a christmas tree. The Police told me it was some of the best footage they'd ever seen. He was subsequently arrested and convicted.

Distraction technics are commonplace with thieves now because people do take more care not to leave bags and valuables within unsighted reach, and some of those techniques are designed to steal things right from under your nose. Many years ago I had a purse stolen that was right in front of me by a distraction technique. Now I always keep money and cards (and keys and phone) in secure pockets when I go out. On the CCTV thing....most modern systems switch to night vision when luminance drops below a certain level. It sounds as though the Bishop needs to upgrade their cameras (which isn't a prohibitively expensive thing to do).

I may be able to help you out with rehearsal space. Will contact you via your facebook page.