ianr

Fear not. I sometimes think there is a Gaia principle rules the forum. So, for example, even as a Waynetta leaves, an Annette Curtain arrives.

The wife's sentence was 36 _weeks'_ imprisonment suspended for 18 months. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/22/counter-terrorism-police-fraud-london-bombing

TopTree>Is that the same Stephen Govier ? who allegedly shot someone in the USA? I think you well know it is. http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=rotten_boroughs& [Additional stuff removed: stuff about suspended Southwark councillors probably better in separate thread]

My transcription of his first three paragraphs: "Well, I understand that some bedbugs have been found at the United Nations Building in New York, which is unfortunate but, some good may come of it, you never know. Maybe somebody could find a place for them on the Human Rights Council. They might help to elevate the integrity of that forum somewhat. "Yes, it's that time of year again, when members of the cartel of third world dictatorships known as the Organisation of Islamic Congress [in fact Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC)] take time out from brutalising their own people to force through a resolution at the Human Rights Council against what they call the defamation of religions, by which they mean telling the truth about Islam and the countries where it calls the shots. "They say they want to stop people wrongly associating their religion with terrorism and human rights violations. But I don't think anyone does. I think people correctly associate Islam with those things. I certainly do, but then, what do I know? All I've got to go on is overwhelming evidence." I don't see any point in discussing the particular speaker. And I currently know nothing about the OIC, so can't say anything about that either. I do see that "The OIC considers the ongoing coercion and oppression in Libya as a humanitarian catastrophe which goes against Islamic and human values." http://www.oic-oci.org/home.asp

Isn't rubsley/monkeymoo22/'.'/Hugeunot (note: not the long-established Huguenot) still live? And with an additional account as (so far just) minkturtle?

I did, in fairness, look at the first 50" of the 6'45" video. Did you not see the subtitles? The audio is there, so check another sound source on your system.

>I think it's pretty clear what I am asking. Well, you're presumably asking people to follow a link labelled "some bloke", enable their Flash, and download and view some undescribed video of more or less unknown interest or content, and then presumably say something about it. I'm sorry. I did, this once, get as far as selecting the link, to get maybe some idea from a YouTube page of what it was about. That turned out to be useless too. But generally I long ago gave up clicking on links proffered in the first post of a a message board thread because it was something (it tends often to be a tabloid's headline feature of the day) the writer found affirming or affronting, and wanted me to discuss, possibly even agree with them about. They generally turned out to be pretty excruciating discussions too, so I doubt that my now habitual passing them by has done me much harm.

>I hope that clears that up for you. To an extent, yes, thanks. But it does still leave a page like this appearing a bit bizarre: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?27,319523,597192#msg-597192

Just to query, as I'm not really understanding, the appearance of a period . as a username (associated with user number 21618) as in this thread.http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?9,624790 . It also produces anomalous and inconsistent results, between an author search by username . (appear relatively ok), and a left click on the link in the post associated with the username (when it returns many more posts purportedly from user . with number 21618, but many of which show clear signs of having actually been written by other named users).

Loz wrote:> If I follow this correctly, you are asking me to show that the right does not exist for a shopkeeper to display whatever they want in their window?? No, I'm saying that the onus is on you, in any instance, to show why they do not have that right. What propositions do you want us to infer from your adduced examples, and how do you think they apply to the OP case?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > KeyboardWarrior Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > If I was a shop owner I would display whatever wanted in my shop window. > > Whatever a shop owner wants to display, eh? So if he was to put up a large picture of you with the > word 'rapist' underneath you would support his right to do this? I don't think so. Introducing the notion of 'supporting' a right just complicates matters. Why not just stick to the question of whether or not the right exists? On that question I think the onus is on you, for whatever meanings of 'right' you intend, to show that the right does not exist.

This one's presumably the other of the two stallholders. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article682521.ece

Another account: http://www.thisissouthdevon.co.uk/news/Police-arrested-disabled-fruit-knife-man/article-2183657-detail/article.html

And I forgot to set a marker for the programme. > He also told me he is an architect. Couldn't find any Binda on the online Architects Registration Board register. Here are some of the people they've prosecuted for calling themselves architect when not duly qualified.

fader

> We're on BT Broadband and getting an actual download of 16085Kbps as we speak, I'm on Virgin National (ADSL). Apart from a total of about twelve weeks when my download speeds have approached the 7.5 Mbps that my system routinely negotiates on connection, all my downloads, however measured, have a very noticeable ceiling, quickly reached, close to 860 kbps, regardless of time of day, and despite a daily download total usually well under 100MB. All for ?18. :) Unrecorded periods, in the attached plot of brief tests on speedtest.net, are all periods when the standard 860 kbps ceiling applied.

I've just received my most muddle-headed malware-spreading email yet. On the one hand, it's halfway competent. It claims to be a notification from DHL Express about a wrong address on a package for me. Can I please print a local copy of the address label, to take along to their local office in order to collect the package. The English is fine, and credible. And they provide several links to real DHL sites. The malware itself is downloadable via a "Click here to print the shipping label" link and is an executable .exe file, parked on a hijacked .co.uk website, that would doubtless colonise my computer if given half a chance. All well and bad. But utterly spoiled by their having sent the same email, as open copies, to about twenty other people, who all also happen to have the same username. I then noticed too that the link labelled "DHL Express services.proud to be different" points to an empy .gif file on the Nationwide Building Society website. I blame the teachers.

I'm not sure that anyone's yet focused here on the specific reasons given for Southwark's refusal of the Archdale Road application number 09/AP/2497, where the applicant appealed but lost. It failed only on Class A, condition (g) -- the not more than three metres high one. The reason given for considering it as a house extension, rather than a roof one, is here. Does it illuminate or confuse?

Channel Five 20:00-21:00.

I don'r know them, but I've PM'd you the result of googling the postcode and the surname. Enquiry closed.

The pattern's only €3.33. http://netgarn.dk/product.asp?product=490 You'll want Faroese wool, of course.

faery

It might be worth having a look at the online GIS-incorporated Southwark maps, linked to from here.

sarod

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cooking oil doesn't solidify, does it? It does if you bubble hydrogen through it. ;-)