ianr

dbboy, yes, in part. And there has been talk about it on the forum on the Virginmedia site. In my case, there were problems with all my email addresses at the end of last week. They were apparently corrected by Virgin later in the day. But since not too long afterward, I've not been able to download from a mailbox on pop3.virginmedia.com. My pop.virgin.net mailboxes are accessible, as is smtp.virgin.net, which I use for posting. I have login and password set for both POP and SMTP access. In both cases I'm _not_ currently using SSL ports, for POP download or SMTP posting (though I did try them, experimentally, to see if they resolved the problem -- they didn't.) I know Virgin have now specified them, but I've delayed any switches till absolutely necessary and any switchover is stable. Interestingly, some of the posters on the forum have actually recommended using the standard, non-SSL ports.

>If you are without tone on your phone line this seems like a connection problem on your own line >(rather than a systemic fault) - not of course pleasant for you and very frustrating That would be quite good news in my book. I previously had two protracted periods of BB ADSL deterioration. I could monitor and see clearly the intermittent decreases in Signal/Noise margin (especially after raining) and subsequent line drops, but couldn't definitely tie it to a line hardware fault (rather than, say, intermittent electrical noise interference from a nearby source). And the line quality passed BT voice tests, so no immediate cause for calling in a BT engineer (I don't buy BB from them). But each time, once the line fault got so bad as to make voice calls impossible, I was home and dry. Each time the fault was due to a corroding wire junction within 15m of the house.

Has Penguin68's first question been answered? Alternatively/additionally, has a similar webstick, known otherwise to be working, been tried in the problematic location, on Karrie's own computer(s) or another one?

>Ian.... >You are GOOD ( with a capitol G ) >How much do I owe you ? For my continuing silence? I'll take an open rain cheque.

This is getting very strange. The moment I put my own fez on, I received these perceptions of Woof. I hope you don't mind me putting them in public ... Your sexual adjustment has presented some problems for you. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned to your advantage. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself. You have a strong need for other people to like you and for them to admire you.

paragon, did you manage to get in shot behind him?

>Anyway it is sort of purple and brown colour frame and is Barracuda brand. >It is a ladies frame and has a rack on the back. Like any of these? http://www.discountbicycles.co.uk/biz/search.php?xSearch=Barracuda&submit=Search

Some appeared in a neighbouring garden, where there's a very fruity tree, earlier this week. Started off with one, quite noisy, at late breakfast and supper times, but a few companions turned up on subsequent days. Once done they tended to head off, with more squawking/mewing, for a more woody area. No sound of them for a few days now.

Try this tool. http://journeyplanner.tfl.gov.uk/

Single-handed

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dunno, but every time I pass it on a bus I do wonder how much training a Salvo > needs to warrant such a huge (but lovely) building. I visited it on one of those Open London weekends a few years ago; even got a view from the roof. From what I remember it's, among other things, a residential college. In the main worship area were flags for each of the two-yearly intakes. I see there's information about the building project at http://www1.salvationarmy.org.uk/uki/www_uki.nsf/vw-dynamic-index/646D93957B28B4068025754E0043547C?Opendocument.

>It was a corn snake. Apparently not so deadly, unless you're a small furry or feathered thing. But not to worry, the papers could still hype it up.

Desuetude, (fallen into)

>I just heard on London radio 94.9 that parliament are debating dangerous dogs again this week. I guess that's the second reading of Lord Redesdale's Dog Control Bill. http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/dogcontrolhl.html

John, I'll mosey on up there some time. An expert? Absolutely not. I guess I'm just intrigued by the ontology, especiallly the notion of impossibility. Tomorrow it could just as easily be absolute offences, or carniverous varieties of begonia, if someone mentions them. My expertise never extended further than collecting sightings of steam locos when I got the train to school. I'm still waiting for Channel Packet, 35001. >It's still wrong though as in 1887 the East Dulwich line had Stroudley, Billington, and Marsh tank engines. Respeck.

Chener Books Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As a matter of historical accuracy: the architect's view of (what is now) Dulwich Hospital > has an impossible 2-2-2 steam engine on the railway tracks. If the LBSCR ever had such a > locomotive it would have been scrapped in the 1850s. > I've not seen the photo, and probably wouldn't know what made the pic impossible anyway, but according to this the LBSCR was using the Craven 'Jenny Lind' class locomotive until at least 1877 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Craven_locomotives, and more 2-2-2s were introduced and lasted until 1914. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stroudley Lots more, on all the Whyte types, Jenny Linds, LBSCR, etc, etc, on Wikipedia, for thems with anoraks and filled thermoses. ;)

Query for Southern, 11 July 2010: http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/service_disruptions/currentAndFuture.html?nojs=true&action=true&day=11&month=07&year=2010&toc=sn Southern, future engineering works: http://www.journeycheck.com/southern

Santerme wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What is often the case is that the rights incorporated under section 1 of the Act give the > court no power other than to make a declaration of incompatibility with Human Rights and no power > whatsoever to disapply the law found in confict. What is always the case is that the section gives to all courts the power (in fact the obligation) to apply all domestic law so as to be compatible with ECHR rights and authorities, and to higher courts of appeal the power to make a declaration of incompatibility where that is found to be impossible. Are you seeking to imply that that such incompatibilities are often found? > Such judicial declarations are extremely rare. A default inference from that might well be that there are very few cases where domestic legislation is found to be irretrivably incompatible with ECHR law. Or are you suggesting that courts often find an incompatibility but decline to make a declaration of that incompatibility? Whatever, I think it would help understanding of your argument if you cite some cases where you think the outcome of the workings of the HRA have been unsatisfactory.

sweetgirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > just heard a young lady, possibly a jogger was stabbed in the back... apparently two guys in a > works vehicle were there at the scene helping to comfort her. been told shes in hospital getting > treatment.... as we all know at times like this theres always > rumours so i can't say how much of this information is true... > > apparently it happened at the bit leading into the estate where the cars enter... sweetgirl, just saving this to see how accurate it turns out to be.

But hey, if you're talking about this thread http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,99394,page=1#, that was a case of the authorised enforcers being there and personally witnessing the offence. No-one's going to be penalised for speeding, just on the say-so of an eye witness. The same surely goes for littering. [Edit: actually, make that paragraph interrogative. I don't know what Southwark do.] In this case, apart from saying what you think to the person who dropped the litter, I don't think you can do much more than writing to the licensing authority saying: "I don't suppose you have any authority in the matter, but can you please pass on to the driver of ... [complete, ad lib]". If you really want to push it, you can request the registered owner's name and address from DVLA, and write to him/her personally. [Further edit] Now got to p7 of that thread, in which PR posts "Southwark Council reckon if you see someone driving their car and you get a good description of them and their car and the registration number, that if you see them throwing litter out of their car when on Southwark roads you can report them and they WILL write to the owners (who have probably just reported the car as stolen, of course!) and fine them." So, if you want to experiment, there's one more alternative. Even a letter from Southwark would probably be more useful than nowt. [Final (5th) edit] EPA1990, s88, as mentioned by Bluey, has it that if just "an authorised officer of a litter authority has reason to believe a person has committed an offence under section 87", they can issue an FPN to that person.] A private prosecution is the only other thing that comes to mind. :) Does the statute prohibit it?

> How typical that he owns a staff and that the technique used to "control" his dog is to kick it- > tells you everything you need to know about him. To my reading, it was a neighbour who possibly kicked the attacking dog. The owner reportedly appeared after that and threatened to "kick our dogs". I don't believe we've been given any evidence that the owner controls his own dog by kicking it. I'm not defending the owner. AM, in your position I'd try talking to the local neighbourhood police team. You don't have to take any other action, or name names. You could just tell them the above facts, ask what actions you or they might take, consider any recommendations, and discuss likely consequences. I hope they'd be willing to talk to you on that basis. I'd be very disappointed if they didn't see that as part of their job. The ironic thing is that, to my understanding, unless anyone was in fear of personal injury, the dog is not deemed 'dangerously out of control' within the Dangerous Dogs Act; whereas what you've described seems to me (IANAL) a pretty clear case of threatening behaviour by the owner which, with three witnesses, might even be prosecutable. I'm not proposing that course (even if the police did think it worthwhile) and realise that we don't live in an Enid Blyton or George Dixon world. But I am wondering whether a quiet serious warning from the police about threatening behaviour, the threatened actions, and the duty to control one's dog, might pay dividends. The flippant contributions haven't done much for the thread, the forum, or AM.

ruffers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've heard guards blowing their whistles even before people have started to get off the train, > never mind on. I guess I can rationalise it that they're trying to encourage people to be quick but > like Timster says it just stresses people out, and I'd question what difference it makes. That reminds me of Wimbledon station about three years ago, when I was getting out of the rear coach of the 14:08 Waterloo train that had stopped less than ten seconds previously. My foot was landing on the platform when I had a marked startle reaction, including hands to ears, to a sudden, painfully loud, burst of a whistle from the train dispatcher, about ten feet away from me to my left. I also noticed an instant partial hearing loss in my left ear. I went back to speak to him a few minutes later, even made a note of his name, but never got round to complaining further. I really should have done, if only to make it less likely to happen to others. It took several hours for the threshold shift to mainly recover. I have anyway a slight higher frequency hearing loss in that ear, and an intermittent faint tinnitus, usually mostly unnoticed. But for probably at least a year afterward the tinnitus was very markedly louder. Possibly there was a slight drop in acuity over that period as well. That was SW Trains' area, so not Barry's manor. But I guess the whistles might be the same. I was even thinking of putting in a FoI request to ask for their technical specification and for any instructions given to SW Trains employees about their use. Anyway, I pass this on now for the benefit of all. I may as well copy the URL to SW Trains. I remember believing at the time that the station management (with presumably its own responsibility for passenger safety) was the responsibility of a national body other than a TOC, but I've no idea now. When getting off trains at Wimbledon now, btw, I still have my hands ready to block my ears.

Jeremy wrote on 25 February, 2009 ------------------------------------------------------- > for me the weight of circumstantial evidence against the petrol station over the > last couple of years is too much to ignore. Another conviction today, not the first, of people involved in petrol station card fraud. In this case they compromised the Pin Entry Devices to get card data, and then cloned cards for use principally in ATMs abroad. R4 You and Yours (in ?last ten minutes) reported on it, but it'll be in all the papers. Principal fraudster a 29 year old Sri Lankan software engineering graduate allegedly called Theogones De Montford. It sounds all too easy to do, with the right expertise, in places where management is lax and possibly unsupervised access is easy.

> 7639 (Peckham and New Cross) as is 7635) were one of the first exchanges to get broadband at 500kb now it is still only about 2 to 3mb according to my tests, anyway! You can enter your postcode here to get a more official version: http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/adslchecker.php

Just don't fall off the edge.