ianr

Year-on-year figures going down and monthly figures going up aren't incompatible. This is a busy time of year for all sorts of things. A comparison with the same month last year would be useful. It would be good to have details of all available data sources. The one I've just looked at, which confirms a year-on-year decrease in burglary figures, is Appendix 1 to the MPA Headline Performance Report of 14/10/10. http://www.mpa.gov.uk/committees/sop/2010/101014/05/

[Experiment deleted. Back to the sandbox]

Pearson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry to pull you up on this Ratty, but your 'cuss' makes no sense at all.. > 'ratty - acting like a @#$%& since 1970' > > I've already picked admin on this earlier, but we all know there are only four characters in any decent cuss. Phorum, as configured, works in a mysterious way. The @#$%& is general-purpose. AFAICS, if a word contains an offending string, [ed: for some of them] the whole word seems to come out as @#$%&. But if you enter different offending words explicitly in the search window, the search returns different sets of hits. So there are in reality all sorts of @#$%&s. Ratty's making sense, but in a rather ambiguous sort of way. Without testing, we can't tell what kind of @#$%& he is on any particular day, or even in any particular post.

>Sorry, you've lost me again. Noticed a copy of Tarot Made Easy in Wimbledon Oxfam last week. Would it be helpful?

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I used to decant a 1.5 pint Bachelors packet soup mix into three equal portions and eat with two > slices of bread and a one inch-cubed square of cheddar ('number two') - every day - for two years. Is that what brought on the asterisks?

Happen thou's seen that This Sporting Life fillum on t'box recently. Now, that were a good story. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007wv7r

He'll be on to panties before he can help it.

I nearly got knocked down on that Bellenden Road stretch a few years ago, through walking across it in the belief that traffic would only be going in one direction. That was a useful educational reminder. I had a close look this afternoon. On a post at the Holly Grove end of the stretch there is a paper about a proposed traffic order allowing bicycle contraflow in Bellenden Road between Holly Grove and Highshore Road, and in two other roads (I think one might have been Gervase something). That was dated July, with the consultation period ending in August. There are three fairly freshly painted cycle symbols on the left hand of the stretch, facing in the contraflow direction, and what was the far side of the speed humps have also been painted. But no other signs at all. I very much doubt that the painted symbols confer any right in themselves, though I suppose that they might just stymie any prosecution for riding the wrong way etc, against anyone who survives. I really wouldn't try or advise it, with motorists being potentially wholly unaware of the possibility. I trust there soon will be proper advisory signs for all, though I've no idea how far the administrative processes have got. I gave up searching for any relevant information on the new improved Southwark website before despair ensued. I did, fwiw, come across this: "Camberwell Community Council CGS Capital Programme 2010-11 Funding Allocations To build a cycle contraflow that enable cyclist to use Grove Vale, Oglander Road and Copleston Road in both directions therefore creating a permeable cycle route to and from Grove Vale ?35,000"

Steve, the odd thing according to this is the Pulse sessions still being free: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/80/splashing-free_swims_extension_benefit_hundreds. When were you last there? I've downloaded the September price list, and that shows 60p as the junior/over-60s Axess swim price for all centres, with it being free only if you spend hundreds on some lifestyle scheme.

>Oh god, I know i know, I'm picking holes in Spooks You think there's enough substantial left to pick holes in?

Can someone please record it for the rest of us to appreciate?

From the age of 11, not to have offered my seat in a bus or train, probably accompanying it by a touch of the peak of my cap, would I think probably have been deemed a school offence. Even if not, it felt like it. I'm not sure how much such policy worked to actually generate or reinforce one's inner samaritan, but it did inculcate the habit, and the feeling that there were people more needy or deserving than ourselves (in this case apparently the entire set of adults). But TBH I don't recollect resenting it or feeling it unjustified. I was young and fit. I could cycle a mile to the station, stand in crowded trains, then walk another mile to the school, without any difficulty.

Tarot, did you witness it? If not, is your information from an eye witness?

I thought East Dulwich was twinned with a small town on Nog?

Thanks. Any more information on eg age, height, build, colour, hair, distinctive features, clothing?

ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I had a look in the library at the report in the print version of Southwark News, but didn't bother to copy > it or make notes. I'll try to summarise it from memory later today unless anyone else does better. Very much a second best but AFAIR, and with my own comments in square brackets: Reporter spoke with Sgt Kristian Leighton. [Not clear in what capacity he spoke. He's currently shown assigned to the Camberwell Green SNT] Initiative arising from Southwark's position on some league table of dog incidents. The initiative information-led and ongoing. Five times more dogs seized in August than in July. [No indication of whether information input had increased, whether any referred to organised crime, or what kind of information it was.] Mainly prohibited dogs and/or dangerously out of control. Prohibited dogs can be returned to owners subject to conditions such as muzzling, chipping, tattooing, ?keeping on lead, ... [i guess the conditions bit refers to a magistrates court order under the Dogs Act 1871. That's a civil action not a criminal process, and is applicable to any "complaint that a dog is dangerous, and not kept under proper control."] [surely they can't really mean 'prohibited' dogs? When I read that I suspected some garbled reporting.] Action can be taken to prevent dogs that ?bite/?injure a person from doing so again. [is that an indication that, in the case of at least an unprohibited breed, the police/whoever will only take action on evidence of injury to a person?]

peckhamboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Surely by definition, nobody could ever be guilty of "being in control" of a dog that is dangerously > "out of control"? The concepts must be mutually exclusive? I'd assume the writer had a momentary lapse of attention and meant to type "being in charge". The Act's easily checkable online.

"To Jonquil and Hermione I leave 33 IQ points each, in the forlorn hope that they will make good use of them. "What remains of my collection of marbles I leave in trust to the nation ..."

For anti-virus I used to use free AVG, but then found it a probable cause (just possibly in interaction with Zone Alarm firewall) of intermittent undue slowing or hanging of the computer due to its hogging the processor. Anyway, I couldn't get to the bottom of it, so switched to free Avast, which seems fine. I'd advise using a software firewall too, preferably one that monitors outgoing requests as well as incoming -- more chance of detecting any intruder that has slipped under the net and wants to communicate with the outside world. I understand that Norton can sometimes be a bit difficult to uninstall fully. There is an uninstall tool available if need be, possibly even from Norton. I think it's easily findable.

first mate: >In my view and under the terms of the DDA, any dog in a public place must be under control at all times. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (s.3) offence is the owning or being in control of a dog "dangerously out of control in a public place." Note the "dangerously".

ImpetuousVrouw Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The 'keep dogs on short lead' signs in Dulwich Park do not have the force of law because there was no dog control order made to back them up. As I said at http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,371722,372383 on 23/11/09 "A Dogs on Leads Order http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20061059.htm applies to a specified area. The only mention I can find of one on the Southwark website refers to the Aylesbury Estate only http://www.southwark.gov.uk/Public/NewsArticle.aspx?articleId=37314." OTOH, I can't even find evidence of that or any orders now on the Southwark website, after what the "Page not found" page reports is its "recently undergone ... major reworking." Does anyone happen to know what notices there are on the Aylesbury Estate? I was open-minded about the OP, but I fully trust bawdy-nan's report. And I doubt that SteveT's the sort to mistake enthusiastic friendliness for attack. I had a look in the library at the report in the print version of Southwark News, but didn't bother to copy it or make notes. I'll try to summarise it from memory later today unless anyone else does better.

"23 September 2010 Will Shenton [email protected] "EXCLUSIVE "Twenty dangerous dogs have been seized in one month, as part of an operation by police, Southwark Council and RSPCA. "Many of the dogs captured during Operation Bark are pitbulls or pitbull ?cross?, and most of them were prohibited by law or ?dangerously out of control?, according to police. " http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/00,news,20993,185,00.htm That's all you get in the free online version.

Ah, penny drops. The donor of the book will have registered, the label signifies that, and on sale the shop collates all such labels and claims gift aid on the total. Thanks.

Now open again. Definitely less of an obstacle course, and the old clothes smell seems to have gone. At first sample maybe a bit too warm and bright for my physiology (but then many shops are) and I wouldn't be able to tolerate the music for more than ten minutes. But ... _did_ pick up a copy of Seligman's Learned Optimism for a good price. If I read some of that and less of the forum, who knows what will happen. Bit confused by the assistant's saying something about Gift Aid when she peeled off the price label to stick on a sales sheet but without asking my address. When I queried it, it seems that there _are_ provisions for their getting a Gift Aid allowance on purchases, but by then I was a bit too stressed to take it in or pursue. It could well be worthwhile asking about next time.

Seems ok now. I suspect the server was going through a Zen phase.