ianr

From the latest Commons Library research paper "Unemployment by constituency, June 2010" available at http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/research-papers/research-papers-2010/ Dulwich & W Norwood constituency JSA claimants May 2010: 3,879 - annual increase of 10.1% Claiming more than 12 months: 745 - annual increase of 93.5% Claimants aged over 50: 580 - annual increase of 26.1% ONS claimant rate May 2010: 5.5% Employment rate, year to Sept 2009: 73.9% Camberwell & Peckham constituency JSA claimants May 2010: 5,121 - annual increase of 8.8% Claiming more than 12 months: 1,130 - annual increase of 34.5% Claimants aged over 50: 755 - annual increase of 14.4% ONS claimant rate May 2010: 6.2% Employment rate, year to Sept 2009: 66.6%

>Sue - see the 'breast milk stinks' thread for the full story. Eventually found it. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?29,424391,page=1 Not having read it all, and it being old, I'm withdrawing my previous comment on it. I'll carry on using the Mind shop.

village people Wrote: > Unfair comment? I don't think so, it was obvious from the previous post that someone had been > knocked down so to suggest it may have been a fit was to trivialise it. What was the point? Far from everything that's said here is obviously true, I'm afraid. Only this week, in another thread about a road accident, there were confident assertions of fact that turned out to be most probably not so. In this thread itself there have been different accounts of whether the driver fled the scene or remained. > By the way, the victim was a small boy who has sustained a very nasty open fracture.

Valewall Ltd, Reg. No. 05640823 was dissolved in 2007 according to the Companies House record. http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/ebc64b852b536796d5b73a631f676476/compdetails

> All mushy peas require is a 'rebrand'. Or a research paper reporting that three helpings a week decreases your risk of disease X by 30%.

>Better to take stuff directly to a charity shop Which is what the council advises in this notice: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200098/trading_standards/233/trading_standards_update/2. When you check the collecting company's details, it's quite often been fairly recently set up. RA & B Services Ltd's details are at http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/2807aa8a8586eafc2098101f064804cd/compdetails. I see they've unusually not stated the nature of their business.

I wrote on 12 April: ------------------------------------------------------- > A pied wagtail on Tulse Hill station this morning (platform 3). More recent sightings: a few weeks ago, Tulse Hill, platform 2, and today, Wimbledon, platform 9. These are both FCC train platforms. Does ED have no pied wagtails?

I needed to look at it in detail anyway, for not only the general stuff, but also the limited 'deemed approval' provisions for estate agents' signs, that they seem to be happy to overstep. But then, if they've been led to believe there's a circle of hell waiting for them anyway ... Good luck, and let us know how it goes.

I hope he has a more extensive lexicon for his lady patients.

ECI THUMP!

Get the silly ones out of the way first. Dulwich Ophelias.

I've been looking at the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Part VIII, Chapter III (Advertisements) http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?LegType=Act+%28UK+Public+General%29&title=Town+and+Country+Planning+act&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&TYPE=QS&NavFrom=0&activeTextDocId=2282933&PageNumber=1&SortAlpha=0 and the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements)(England) Regulations 2007 http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=Town+and+Country+Planning+%28Control+of+Advertisements%29+%28England%29+Regulations&Year=2007&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&activeTextDocId=3284741 I can see the powers granted to permit or remove advertisements, and the preconditions for conviction of errant advertisers, but can't see anything there about instant penalty notices (which I'm not up to speed with anyway). Kapt.K, what was the actual chapter and verse given on your penalty notice? I want to be satisfied that the council is exercising its powers proportionately, fairly and consistently. I can't, for example (just one instance of many) remember a year when there haven't been some circus advertisements that were still present months after the circus had gone. Have they been fined? And some posters I've seen this year are in positions which I don't believe any reasonable council would have permitted. From present knowledge I find it worrying that a fine's been imposed here, for what seems to be a pretty trivial infraction that could probably have been dealt with to most people's satisfaction by simply warning you and asking you to take the notices down. Incidentally, Regulation 24 requires that there be a public register of all applications made for display of advertisements, and the decisions thereon. I don't yet know about records of prosecutions or other sanctions. And also incidentally, if an unpermitted advertisement "gives publicity to his goods, trade, business or other concerns", the onus is on the proprietor to prove that "6(a) the advertisement was displayed without his knowledge; or (b) he took all reasonable steps to prevent the display or, after the advertisement had been displayed, to secure its removal." (TCPA1990, s.224) That, it seems to me, opens the door to a very large number of possible prosecutions. Kapt.K, I trust your photos have correct dates encoded on them somewhere (eg in the EXIF field of JPEGs).

>If it does go back up then it will be in the ED Businesses section of the forum. Not specific to this thread, but I am concerned about threads on GP practices being assigned to the Businesses section. I think of them (still) as public services, like police, libraries, Royal Mail, schools, trains and buses, NHS hospitals, or any other NHS provision.

Now you want a sign on a piece of cardboard. "See the wild terpin for 6d".

"Sorry, we have a policy, if you are even one minute late for an appointment, you can't be seen and have to rebook." I don't suppose you have any idea whether you were _effectively_ late -- ie that a GP's time had been wasted waiting for you to come into the room when you weren't actually on the premises? I always arrive early for an appointment and can't remember a single instance of one actually starting at or before the appointed time.

But cf also this, which is the meaning that first comes to my mind, from the Wikipedia entry: "...there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle itself is frequently referred to as Godwin's law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread." I'm not invoking it here. :) BTW, thanks to the contrarian contributors for providing some balancing information. I hope Mr Ralon enjoys his retirement or whatever he'll be pursuing.

I would not have asserted that Autumn R and Theodore S aren't real people (and note that Huguenot has recently said he takes Jennifer at her word). Autumn currently has 56 FB friends, including two of the members of FB ORCA Local Dulwich (but not including Jennifer or TS). A local blogger (not an ORCA LD FB member) also includes Autumn and another ORCA LD member as friends. Comparing some of the content of their profiles (they're both members of FB ORCA Local Dulwich), I do get the impression of some concerted activity: in particular, the bit.ly short links they provide to their websites are identical and link to the Facebook page for ORCA Local Dulwich. TS: Current City: London, United Kingdom/ Hometown: London, United Kingdom AR: Political Views: Democratic Party TS: Political Views: Democratic Party AR: Religious Views: Christian TS: Religious Views: Christian AR: I'm very active and I love to have dinners with my friends. TS: I'm an energetic male. I'd like to watch movies with my friends. AR: In my spare time, I often read books. TS: In my spare time, I often read books. AR: I love to be friends with lots of people. TS: I would love to be friends with lots of people. AR: So I'd love to be your friend too. TS: So I would love to be in your friends list. AR: I really enjoy life! TS: what a nice man I am! AR: Contact Info Website: http://bit.ly/9IjY1n TS: Contact Info Website: http://bit.ly/9IjY1n [Ed: sorry, Theodore, not Thomas]

[Here's a text version] Raising awareness of Domestic Violence Christ Church, East Dulwich Is holding a free event For anyone interested in this issue. Topics include: What is domestic violence? Dynamics of violence & abuse Impact on victims/ survivors Where can you go for help and advice? Saturday June 12th 2010. 11.00am - 1pm Christ Church, Barry Road (opposite Dulwich Library) East Dulwich, SE22 for more information email [email protected]

This is what the appeals authority have to say: http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/TMAYourQuestions.htm#q4

You presumably know that, according to this http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/gbhtml/gp6.shtml#ch1 and this http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/gbhtml/gba5.shtml you could properly deliver a paper copy tomorrow, if need be.

>Next years UK entrant has to be John Shuttleworth But Shuttleworth is a radio man. I suppose changing it to the EuroAudition Song Contest would be out of the question? What would be the economic consequences?

jollybaby, was it possibly an instance of this HMRC error? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10174577.stm

> PS not sure if calling it the Tube is correct, but > i'm just enjoying it! Tube tube tube:)) It can get confusing.

The Charles Booth online archive might be worth a look: http://booth.lse.ac.uk/

The planning application 08/AP/0579 granted here http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9527944 is stated to be conditional upon development being started within three years of the date of decision, 10/06/2008.