ianr

> oh quinnie don't ask ,I've also abandoned the window tearing out with great shouts of glee . > Have no interest in delving into this and running the risk of someone telling us we have to go back to the dark days ! I think I'll join you both in not rechecking. Meanwhile, to turn brown for a moment - I put out my single tiny recyclable bag of a week's organic waste, neatly tied with a piece of decomposable string, on top of my brown bin a couple of hours before collection. It duly disappeared. I noticed that a similar bag, the sole content of a brown bin across the road, had also been collected. I failed, however, to watch what had happened. Do you think they wheeled that bin to the lorry, for the bag to be tipped into it, or do they perhaps retrieve them by hand or picker from the bottom of the bins?

new mother> For goodness sake, why do people post here with things they have found. Hand it into the police. End of story. That is your duty, legal and moral. Isn't that clear?! Ameliesmum> I'll email the safe neighbourhood team this afternoon if no news here See http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?28,711026

It doesn't need an Admin to give you an answer. You can't delete a post but you can edit, preferably by addition to what you previously wrote. If it's to say that something offered is no longer available, the best thing imo is just to open the opening post of the thread for editing, and then change the thread title by adding NOW GONE or similar.

zelda100 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, DJKillaQueen, I agree too. I think the council have been more than inept though... > I was on a train recently and happened to overhear a conversation where a woman who works in > legal aid recounted a case she had a few years ago. Basildon Council - in an attempt to get the > travellers to leave - had published all the details of the travellers including their children's > special educational needs statements (without being 'redacted' so all names etc were still on there). > Not surprisingly, they were taken to court and ordered to pay damages to the (I think) three children > involved. But it gets worse - Basildon council actually appealed against this and spent another ?18k > on the appeal, to get out of paying... ?300 to each child. Shameful if true (I have no way of > authenticating it, but have no reason to doubt what she was saying). This is probably the judgment, dated 9 November 2010, in the case you're thinking of. It was the two children who brought the action, seeking judicial review of Basildon's refusal to follow the Local Government Ombudsman's recommendation that each be paid ?300 compensation. It was held that Basildon were correct in not taking the LGO's recommendation to be binding, but unreasonably and unlawfully at fault in the reasoning that led to their decision. The LGO, who acted as an interested party in the judicial review, reported earlier this year that the council subsequently made the recommended payments. [Edited to reformat only]

Oxalis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe I should get a life but here is a recent BMJ > article on the subject > > http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c4616.full Thank you. If people only have the time or money to read one paper, I think this 2010 paper is the one to recommend. It also happens to be free. It refers to the Lancet paper (Lancet 2008;372:1039-48; doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61445-2).

>Any tips ?? Step 1: can you tell that your laptop's wireless hardware is switched on (ie an indicator light shows)? Step 2: are you familiar with any piece of software on your laptop that's used to configure its wireless conection?

Stitch womb badly. (6) [ed: sorry, just noticed: that line ended with a six within parentheses, which in this installation is ridiculously used to encode the icon. Best rewrite as:] Stitch womb badly. [6]

> marnie was advertised on the net for sale ( in orpington) In that case the police should be given a statement and any other available evidence to confirm the fact, so that they can pursue the seller's details. [Edit:] ...and the buyer's. >we have a discripition of the person who she was sold to How did you manage to get that?

> Does Marnie have any distinguishing features that could help to differentiate it from all the other hundreds of Yorkies in South East London? Yes, a microchip that will tell any vet it's taken to that it's on the stolen list. See the OP on the Facebook page. The theft itself took place in June, and I doubt that any of the details of it are now of much effective use in recovering the dog. I'd have thought that a one-post thread, with a link to eg this lostdog page, and a few descriptive words about a possible recent Orpington link, would have sufficed.

ie, there's an informative web page by Jochen Topf © on "Characters in the local part of a mail address" here.

Licensing by the police, possibly on the recommendation of the mayor's office, is apparently required for any door-to-door collection.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've invested the groats and your money in a scheme to harvest sunshine from cucumbers, > unfortunately the bottom fell out of the sunshie market last week and we've lost everything. Baah. Time to move on to an alternative project.

>Have anybody had the same experience? It's a fairly routine one. Learning about reading email headers will help demystify.

Are they definitely not going to be usable, even if the amount of recyclable stuff one has may be well less than half a boxful?

Thank you :)

Mockney, crossword enthusiast sites don't usually publish solutions until after the competition closing date. That does help keep it more of a skilled competition than a plain lottery. This one is open for another week.

> just the ticket, all done now. crossword duly placed in bin. I'm afraid I only do crosswords that have prizes nowadays. > How the hell do you email it? Typed, in exactly the form the solution is printed. I mean to get round to checking with PE, how they deal with entries and winner selection, and whether they can usefully accept the Across Lite file or a jpeg of a screen capture.

What, not finished yet? In what format do people usually submit their entry, btw? I send a text email.

> Which of the many threads to ressurect? The least critical one?

Any possible relation to this thread:http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,543811 ?

But enough already. It's PIPPA MIDDLETON TIME!.

> Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; Johnathan Prevette. Twenty-one this year. Where is he now? Here he is, not quite touching a Republican. http://newshopper.sulekha.com/jesse-helms-johnathan-prevette_photo_169630.htm

> Is the fine for not paying/trying to cheat Lambeth or is the fine for failing to display even when you started off displaying? From the determination I referred to: "In these cases, there are a number of factual issues that I will have to determine. But the issue of principle that I have to consider is, to what extent can vehicle owners be liable for penalties which, after they have properly paid for parking time, arise from matters entirely outside their control?" (p2) ..... "Does Section 46 give an authority the power to provide by regulation for the display of a pay and display voucher (and for the manner of display), and for the forbidding of parking at any time at a meter when that meter is showing out of order, so that, irrespective of fault, the person concerned may be liable for a criminal penalty? "As none of the specific provisions appears to be relevant, the Councils are forced to rely upon the general words of Section 46. Section 46 is not, of course, as specific in its enabling provisions as Section 35. However, certainly with regard to the display of a pay and display voucher, there can be no reason of public policy as to why such regulations ought not to be made in respect of on-street parking: because, as I have indicated above, such regulations can clearly be made in respect of off-street parking pursuant to Section 35, and there is no difference in principle between off- and on-street parking in this regard. Further, all of the Councils who appeared in these cases said that strict liability was essential for the proper regulation of the use of pay and display parking places, because of the ease with which the regulations can potentially be abused: it is very easy for a person who receives a PCN for failing to pay and display a voucher to say, after the event, that payment was made and then to produce a voucher which may or may not have been purchased at that time for that vehicle. Each of the Councils said that, in many cases, it would be impossible for them to determine whether the owner was telling the truth: and that is why, the Councils said, it was important to have strict liability for this contravention. Without such strict liability the proper regulation of the use of such places would be impossible, in practice. I consider these submissions are compelling." (p8)

You were possibly lucky the ticket ended face up and in a still obvious place. On the PATAS key cases page, the only determination listed under 'Fluttering tickets' includes two cases in each of which the local regulations were held to apply strict liability on the motorist to display tickets as specified. The closer of the two is Carr (1960207612): pay-and-display ticket left on windscreen; ticket fell face down onto dashboard so that details were invisible; appeal dismissed.

"The consultation period for this application is not open. Please contact the case officer directly if you have any questions. " http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9541857 "There are no documents available online for this application." There will be ample opportunity when they are up to read them, consider, ask advice, discuss, make any representations. Anything submitted earlier will likely be a waste of everyone's time.