ianr

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Open Spaces in Lordship Lane? It's dreadfully sad, when people think of Dulwich Park or Peckham Rye as the epitome of green space. A lot better than nothing, as our Victorian benefactors realised, but still just suburban parks.

>Jrussell the pen? Why not just someone from Winkworth or any other of the local estate agencies?

>Yes and no, because those signs have always been there as part of the one way traffic directions. A cycle contraflow ignores those. Only if there are additional prescribed signs indicating that. Without them, there simply is no legal contraflow. Where the road usage is slow and light, and they can have a cycle contraflow without using a cycle lane, one of the advisory signs used, NP 960.2, requires departmental approval. See for example Cycling England file a06_contra-flow_cycling.pdf at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110407094607/http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingengland/engineering-planning/design-checklist/. That might be what's causing the hold -up. Addendum 21 March 2013 (after having noticed the forum's Spurling road contra flow cycle route thread): Cycling England ceased to be a public body on 1 April 2011 and their web pages have been removed from the DfT site, so I've changed the link to point to the corresponding page of the Cycling England archive now in the National Archive, snapshot made 7 April 2011.

The first road markings, right at the beginning of the stretch, are a no-entry sign _and_ No Entry painted on the road, so it would be a bit difficult to claim total ignorance or certainty. But the sooner it's made consistent, the better.

You could have had a hole in one if you'd done your own google search.

Don't you need a USP, or at least some kind of schtick or leitmotiv, to make a saleable blog? What's yours? ;) [not in the industry]

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is highly unscientific, but my impression of ED autumn colour this year (vide the comment on the > plethora of berries) is that it is more vivid and vibrant, particularly the reds, than I can recently recall. I know what you mean. I'd also say that recording a detailed observation of an impression, along with any reservations, is itself a quintessentially scientific act.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Home Bargains does it ... > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6041510/CCTV-images-of-shoplifters-shown-on-retail-chains-website.html > > http://www.tjmorris.co.uk/crimebusters/ Note that both these articles speak of 'suspected'. The only assertions I know of that any photographs displayed in LL were of shoplifters are those that have been made in this thread.

>I would like to hear some philosophers' views about this Funnily enough, the quotation is, at least on the web, mainly attributed to William James, who counts as both philosopher (pragmatism) and psychologist. I couldn't find confirmation that this one is genuinely his, but there's a fair selection of some others of his here, many of the same ilk. They do come across as a bit cracker-barrel philosopher in bulk, but there's a lot more to him than that. I think I've a book somewhere of his more popular lectures. I'll try to find it for comparison.

Talk Talk are big boys/girls and presumably know what they're doing or is being done at their behest; the reports even here seem to me far too consistent to suggest otherwise. Leave them to it.

You need to be asking the council for information, don't you? Elmwood Road doesn't seem to be on the pull-down menu for conservation areas on the planning applications search page http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.pgesearch . More information on Southwark and trees at http://www.southwark.gov.uk/site/scripts/google_results.php?q=trees.

Great news. An idle question, to which I don't know the answer: can one actually obtain a possession order against persons who are not in possession, or who also happen now to be no longer identifiable or describable?

I see from the map here http://www.oldhousebooks.co.uk/product.php?prod=65 that the Old Kent Road (& Hatcham) station really was on Old Kent Road. I found it while looking unsuccessfully for a Bradshaw, to check the stated scheduled journey time (p.59) from there to Peckham Rye of just four minutes. There is a Bradshaw-Williams timetable to be found http://www.railtimes.biz/index.html, though idiosyncratically it lists only information for the year 2010.

I don't think anyone's picked up appointments yet. I don't think I'm particularly bothered by the caps, at least in the sans serife font used, for use on an A5 flyer. I can imagine some other fonts, even if mixed case, being off-putting. I think I'd try a line space before your web address. Your website needs a going over too. I wouldn't be fanatical about turning it into grade A Queen's English -- wouldn't want to iron over your personality -- but at least get all the spellings and major syntax errors checked. I'll just restrict myself to: 1) Flash - I had to turn it on to view the site. I'm old/introverted/literate enough to find 'busy' websites annoying and/or stressing. It may better suit some of your intended customers, I don't know. Even so, though, I'd consider having a non-Flash version as well. I think it's maybe, just about, still conventional to do so (or was that last week? ;)). Some of your potential customers may also not have it installed as a matter of course. 2) Noise. Glad you ditched the music. But the mouse-over audio bits. AAARGH!! Cheap, inelegant, meaningless, deeply irritating, mindless, imo. I get computer sound output through headphones. And some of the site sounds, most so the louder single-squawk, just produce in me seriously unpleasant brain chemicals whose effects can last half an hour. OTOH, I'm definitely not part of your target customer set (Do you know who they are, btw?) so don't give undue weight to my reactions.

>and there is also a chance for you to receive ?20 just for your participation. I didn't see any such chance offered. Was that because I answered No to question 1? Do we now look forward to an ad about you and Paul opening a local cakeheads' shop?

It's a pretty succinct report though, and very quickly produced: accident 23 Jan, inquiry ordered 28 Jan, report completed 6 Feb (but then a month in the printing). Did you notice the driver's 10hr 40min shift, with the accident happening in the last hour?

A PIO would not need an order, just a signed statement as specified in s.12A; plus perhaps, to be on the safe side and ensure the squatters and police should reasonably be satisfied that your claim is true (s.6.1.(A)), other documentation proving title. Cf the reference to a s.12A statement even in the Advisory Service for Squatters boiler-plate "Legal Warning". http://www.squatter.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=31 And PIOs are, as I read it, specifically excluded from the s.6 offence of using violence to gain entry. If seeking a possession order, I think I'd do the form-filling, service and representation myself rather than pay ?2.5k.

> It goes to show that CCTV does not deter criminals, though. It goes to show that it does not absolutely deter all criminals (allegedly). It does not go show that some criminals have not been deterred. It does not go to show that some criminals will not be deterred in the future.

Saila, please do ask your legal adviser about the legality of your parents, or persons acting for them, exercising rights under sections 6 and 12A of the Criminal Law Act 1977 http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=criminal+law+act+&Year=1977&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=793250&ActiveTextDocId=793260&filesize=61764. From what you have said, they seem to me to come into the category of Protected Intended Occupier (PIO) and would be entitled, with the required proof of title, to break into the flat to gain immediate possession. They could even ask the police to be present, as protectors of the peace. There's a useful take on this kind of case, from I think a police officer, in the 21-10-2010 11:27 post at http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/threads/336065-Squatting-How-is-this-possible?p=11182121.

The publication of visual images of someone, or of allegations against them, doesn't give that person a criminal record, or entitle anyone to fine, imprison or recover damages from them. Think, for example, of the recent cricket-fixing allegations. There are risks in publishing anything which people take to be defamatory of an identifiable person. There's a risk that I was wrong in substance, and that they will sue for damages. There's a risk that I was right in substance, and that they will sue for damages.

underhillroad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > excellent, thanks Louisiana, "your search for The drops of help ltd" has produced no results" acc to website you list. That's because the b*ggers have left spaces out of the name, so it comes in a different place in the collation sequence. Usual pattern: recent start-up, registered office in a residential area. http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/7e1a2dc562109c6f7b4f16053b8efea0/compdetails Click the Order Information link and you'll get a director's name free.

The actual 2001 census question: "10 What is your religion? * This question is voluntary * Tick one box only - None - Christian (include Church of England, Catholic, Protestant and all other Christian denominations) - Buddhist - Hindu - Jewish - Muslim - Sikh - Any other religion, please write in [two ten-character spaces provided]" http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/censusform.asp "The religion question was voluntary, and 4,011,000 people chose not answer it (7.7 per cent)." http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/commentaries/ethnicity.asp I don't call that a leading question, and if 70+% of the population choose to tick the Christian box, who is to gainsay them? There are already available statistics - even cited within the Examples of Census Data Use PDF doc http://www.humanism.org.uk/_uploads/documents/Howthecensusisused.pdf (191kbyte) available on the BHA site - as to the much lower figures of actual attendance/participation. So I don't think anything is being hidden. Paradoxically, if there had been a 'humanist' slot in the 2001 census, I'd probably have ticked it. If one turned up in the 2011 census I might not, if I thought it might be thought to place me in the BHA camp.

The good news is that Southwark makes money from it. "Southwark is now the second busiest borough in London for film-making with around 1500 filming days per year." http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/1048/film_and_photography_permissions/1190/filming_in_southwark//1

It has been going on for quite some time: http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/search.jsp?form=searchHomePage&_divs_fulltext=Dulwich+OR+%22Forest+Hill%22&_offences_offenceCategory_offenceSubcategory=theft&_offences_offenceDescription=dwelling+OR+residence&_verdicts_verdictCategory_verdictSubcategory=guilty&submit.x=0&submit.y=0&submit=Search

>EDIT TO SAY: that's what they did - they broke into our flat and claimed it as their OWN. >The police were called and they said it 'was a civil issue' i.e. nout they can do Squatters will always claim that they have not broken in but used an open door, window or key. To break in would be an offence, as they're well aware. http://www.squatter.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10&Itemid=25 The problem is proving that it has taken place, and in getting the police to act. I don't know what they'd do even if there was persuasive evidence of criminal damage or forced entry by particular squatters. It would, in an ideal world, at least enable their arrest. Whether the police would then drag them out of the place without giving them the chance to shut the doors, I suppose one could dream ...