ianr

>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 ...

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can't imagine that much in a pound shop is zero rated, apart from razor blades Ah. I was thinking of the 99p shops. Different kettle of fish, maybe. Fair bit of edible stuff. All pretty straightforward. ;) http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageLibrary_PublicNoticesAndInfoSheets&propertyType=document&columns=1&id=HMCE_CL_000118#P67_4124

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Had to correct myself to really keep the pedant points high You'd get even more if you took into account the proportion of their turnover that's zero rated for VAT.

>Just heard from my friend who works for the estate agency Alan & Hansen that Poundland >have a temp permit for 2 years to run their business in Lordship lane. What kind of permit would this be? AFAICS from the booklet on planning permision for businesses, downloadable from http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/planningpermission, the place would still be in class of use A1 (shops, etc) , and so no permission for change of use would be needed. Am I wrong, and if so, am I right in thinking that any application for change of use should appear on the register at http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/485/planning_applications/554/search_the_planning_applications_register? I can't see any any current application there. What other permissions might be needed?

I think a more complex answer [ed: to the contravening red lights/one-way signs question] would be that if you do so, you do it at your own risk. And the risk is not just of injury to yourself, but of some personal responsibility for any injury or damage caused by an accident, however unforeseen or unforeseeable, however inculpable you otherwise were, to which your unexpected presence in an area of the road turned out to have been a contributory factor.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I didn't misread the OP but I did get mixed up with the following comments on the practise by > Royal Mail of putting collection cards through letterboxes instead of delivering parcels/ > recorded delivery items. This IS something Royal Mail does and it is unacceptable. You seem now to be trying to direct our attention to other than the point raised with you. Your post of 20/10 18:14, "Still doesn't change the fact that no attempt was made by Royal Mail to deliver the item", seemed, to at least both Sue and myself, to say that you were not accepting the truth of EDDORDC's immediately preceding post. You've so far avoided answering our inferences that in so doing you had either misread that post or had read it accurately and then accused him/her of lying. In the absence of a contrary response, I'll assume the latter.

>Wembley? Just checked some photos. It must be. Thanks, Clare.

Curmudgeon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you like the view from Overhill and live on Goodrich Road head up Donkey Alley and check out > the view from the field in front of the large block of flats (it's common land) > > Best view in London! I walked up there this afternoon, for the first time ever. It's certainly a good view. It's a lot more panoramic than what you can see from Horniman Gardens. Must take my binoculars next time. Anyone know what the metal hoop-like structure is, about 5 degrees east of, and a bit beyond, Battersea Power Station? The birds seem to like it up there too; lots of gliding going on.

James, you don't say what your current lens is (and hence what it's not). If it's choice of focal length(s) you're principally uncertain about, is there really any substitute for a hands-on trial?