ianr

louisiana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's not a public place, it's a private space (which is locked at night) which the public are allowed to enter at > certain times and according to certain rules. Much like a shoping centre or aswimming pool building. I think they are all public places. Cf http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Public_place

"Taking photographs on stations is permitted providing it is for personal use." http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/passenger_services/guidelines_for_rail_enthusiasts.html

>How can you tell by looking at the cash machine if it has one of these things fitted - is there something sticking out from >the slot where the card is inserted or is it less obvious than that??? It's like apiece of plastic tape, stuck inside the slot. But here has to be something there, to enable the thief to recover the device, along with your captured card. Some sites recommend feeling along the slot for two small prongs enabling them to do that. Other sites mention gluing instead, in which case the join might actually be just within the slot. I think I'd additionally, in the absence of anything better, at least give my card a good waggle across the slot, pressing it along the top and lower edges, just to see if there seemed to be anything there. This particular device does look as if it gives a better opportunity than most to catch the perps, as they can only capture one card at a time, and so will very likely be lurking in the area (if I'm wrong in this, please say), maybe in a car with a wifi laptop. So If I got the telltale sign -- the ATM's repeated mechanical attempts to 'swallow' the card -- I think I'd phone 999 immediately, tell the operator it was a Lebanese Loop scam with the likelihood that the perps would be trying to recover my card as soon as I'd left, and suggesting that if they wanted to do some discreet observation for the pick-up, to phone me back once they were in position. One web page mentioned that, instead of cameras, some of these scammers use a 'helpful bystander' who'll advise you that you to re-enter your PIN a couple of times, in order just to note the number. So beware them too, and if you're playing along, enter a wrong number.

There were two young men in suits inside the Co-op yesterday afternoon, importuning customers as they left. As I hurried past I'm pretty sure I say that their lapel labels said Talk Talk, and I think I might have been asked if I was with BT. If so, what on earth is the Co-op doing letting them do their selling on the premises? I hope they at least got a large fee for it.

>In a nutshell, if traffic is moving when you enter a box junction >and you stop in box junction for what ever reasons, then no contravention has happened. That's very far from my reading of the reproduced case summaries shown in the March 2009 thread you've cited.

Remember when you could have a fixed drive uncluttered by the likes of chains and cogwheels?

That reminds me, I think I have somewhere a spare copy for sale of Siegel's Non-parametric statistics. Huguenot?

Jeremy Wrote: > There was a Camberwell station, but it was decommissioned in the sixties. It was - not > surprisingly - situated on Camberwell Station Road, you can still see some of the old building > (now mechanics workshops). I'm assuming it's on the same line as Loughborough Junction. It is. Camberwell New Rd station on the enlarged detail of the map here

>So back to southwark i have gone! Its now in their hands again! Which is where it would be if referred by the court, so cross fingers. But do be prepared to go through the formal procedure if need be.

legalbeagle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > expat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Click on the ':' next to 'Posted by' thatt will mask those messages... What a nifty and unobtrusive little feature. I don't think I'd have found it on my own. Note though that it only works -- both the toggle and the masking -- when you're logged in.

The hinge is an instrument of repressive tolerance.

Kbabe1, on those facts your case sounds the kind that the late statutory declaration procedure could deal favourably with, once you've mustered as much evidence as possible concerning your notification of change of address, its date and consequences, to supplement your own sworn assertions. http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/1043.htm It's going to be the local authority that will make any refund.

>Tomorrow filming takes place on Northcross Road - for an advert - from noon to 7pm. >A crew of 25 plus. Rain and wind macines, dolly and track, set dressing from > 8am (Blue Mountain, Sweetshop, Beauty products shops) and scenery. O brave new world. All these people, going to all this trouble and expense, to help us choose well.

>Mainly burglaries in ED from sash windows being forced - sash 'restrictor' locks quickest and easiest way to reduce this risk >and cost about ?3 per window from all good DIT stores. But see also the discussion in another thread about some locked ones being broken open. Possibly some types or installations may be better than others.

I don't suppose Waynetta (et al) can be charged for each in-line image loaded? ... Maybe a warning tag against each such thread? ... No?, never mind ...

>A years supply of Gentleman's Relish? I think that one might have been for Tuckin Crisply.

Be prepared. A discreet 999 call, even at the cost of a small delay in time, could be more effective than any other action, unless you're capable yourself of arresting the person(s). Any sign of transport, btw, or do we have a lone burglar on foot?

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.