edhistory

Should be quite fertile soil there after the winter of discontent when you could smell the rubbish tip at Goose Green roundabout.

That's a little better than the "Independent".

7. Dealing with deficiencies arising from withdrawal 7(6}. But regulations under this section may not? (a) impose or increase taxation, (b) make retrospective provision, © create a relevant criminal offence, (d) be made to implement the withdrawal agreement, (e) amend, repeal or revoke the Human Rights Act 1998 or any subordinate legislation made under it 7(7). No regulations may be made under this section after the end of the period of two years beginning with exit day. Schedule 7 ? Regulations Part 1 ? Scrutiny of powers to deal with deficiencies Part 2 ? Scrutiny of other powers under Act Part 3 ? General provision about powers under Act This Schedule deals mainly with Statutory Instruments. Schedule 2 deals with protections for the Scottish and Welsh authorities.

To forward this discussion: Identify the "Henry VIII" clauses. Then write about the ones that cause you concern.

Don't rely on these "journalists". This is a small scale pilot for selected types of VISA registered businesses in the USA only. BJL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's starting to happen - from today's > "Independent". > > > The chief executive of Visa has vowed to ?put cash > out of business? and said that the company plans > to pay British businesses not to accept coins and > notes. > > Visa ?declares war on cash? by offering UK > businesses incentives to only accept card and > digital payments

> So the government can repeal or amend legislation without having to have it passed by parliament - in effect government by decree. Why would this be seen as desirable? So you too have not read the Bill?

Robin Oakley does not seem to have read the source document either. I wouldn't rely on anything written by a "journalist".

> I've not read it but I've heard about the Henry VIII clauses and not impressed with that. Have a look at what the "Henry VIII clauses" are. You might change your mind.

I don't think you've read the Bill: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/europeanunionwithdrawal.html

DavidPeckham: Did you identify a threat?

Nick suggested I post a picture of the war damage. The story handed down is that this was repaired within 48 hours.

rahrahrah: Have you identified the threat?

No threat identified there. The planning documents indicate the site boundary with a red line. What is this threat?

It's the final paragraph only on page 80 I am referring to.

LondonMix Did you identify a threat to the Coal Line project from the planning application?

The report is here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/good-work-the-taylor-review-of-modern-working-practices Perhaps someone could point me to the cash-in-hand section? Is this just several naff journalists' interpretation of the final paragraph on page 80 of the report?

I was going to write about the clearances required for maintaining Victorian railway viaducts and contemporary Marlin Plans. No need because this information is here: Statutory consultee replies - NETWORK RAIL http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!TAXgpCQpnQInQ41VnvCZ9g%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d The site boundaries are here: Plan - 2574-PA-100 - SITE PLAN http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!SGQD7IKcP1zfxkQFHSAq9Q%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d Site location plan - 2574-OS http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!EC%2bf%2bIyylcPGTaDQZeE5Hg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d Network Rail are watching the boundary issues. So at the moment I'm a little puzzled about the reason(s) for this thread.

[see main thread]

So the answer is NO. The developer has NOT attempted to sabotage the Coal Line. The developer is pursuing a commercial opportunity.

[see main thread]

> just on the basis it's an attempt to sabotage the project. Is there any evidence to support this?

WEll, that rather supports my asleep at the wheel comment. I wonder why "they" did not submit an outline planning application at the outset. Southwark Council Planning should then have notified "them" of an overlapping application. The Coal Line was unlikely to get planning permission because of lack of disabled access.

What was your objection? Was it the destruction of an interesting Victorian architectural survival?

> Following a last minute planning discovery Asleep on the job?

Edgy behaviour. Needs to be reported to the authorities.