ianr

>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. ;-)

Are you able to get copies/details of whatever identity and address confirmation data has been presented, documentary or otherwise? That might be helpful in identifying any real information that has been available to the perps, and in maybe indicating some other stable doors to be closed asap.

tuism

foist

fusil

folio

"This proposal does not form part of the overall programme currently being carried out by our colleagues in the Signals Department as specific requests from local residents and the Borough have been made for this location." Does Mr Hurt mean to say that the proposal is still under consideration, but as a specific one rather than as part of a general programme? He certainly makes you work to get to that conclusion, but it's the only one I can reach that seems to make any reasonable sense of the sentence as a whole, even if I don't have full confidence in it.

The appeal decision referred to is, I presume, this one [PDF, 84kB]. What's the actual status of the Technical Guidance document? Is there anything in statute or regulation that says that the SoS may publish such guidance, which shall be given due regard or whatever? What is there, in other words, to say that it is anything more than opinion? That said, I don't, as an ignoramus in building matters, see any reason why the extension in that case shouldn't be considered within Class A. Does anyone argue that there could be one? And is there any evidence that other LAs have come to diffferent decisions in similar cases?