ianr

Huguenot's post has me thinking back to iaineasy's post on page 4 http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,447811,450869#msg-450869, in which he says: "In amsterdam ther is a system where squatting is encouraged in empty buildings but under given conditions where the squatter agrees to caretake the building and give it back in good condition, when the owner needs it back, if they stick to the agreement they are offered another place to stay ensuring low homelessness for the squatter and building kept safe for owner." Would something like this be an acceptable and practicable way of meeting and reconciling different groups' perceived needs and rights?

http://www.immobilise.com/about.html, although openly run by a private company, Recipero, is national, free and, it is claimed, used by all UK police forces. All kinds of valuables, not just bikes, can be registered on it. They say they have nearly 24 million members. I use it for everything, including my bike. It's reassuring to hear Otto say that the local police recommended it for his.

There's much more traffic over France today on this map: http://www.radarvirtuel.com/ A little intercontinental traffic crossing SE England, eg a couple of Lufthansa jets Germany -> USA.

Tinfoil hats?

Just twigged. 80s 447.

Aha. Emil Savundra?

"Save some money by NOT sending crew and cameras to ask stranded passengers how they feel." Absolutely. They could do the local supermarket Kenyan mange tout panic buying story instead, for half the cost.

A pied wagtail on Tulse Hill station this morning (platform 3). An amazingly precise and fast pecking action. I thought at first it was more like a nervous gesture, with the beak not actually reaching the ground, but then repeatedly saw it harvesting crumbs of food.

MitchK Wrote: > I'd rather support a local candidate. Good, sorted.

MitchK Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not yet. Had the Tory and Liberal candidates on my doorstep though. Perhaps Tessa thinks she has it > in the bag. Parliament's still sitting this week. Even then, she'll still carry on being a cabinet minister, so may have other demands on her time. Is there any specific detriment in her not having been on your particular doorstep yesterday, today, tomorrow, ...? Come to that, I've had no candidates at all at my door yet. Should I be wailing about them all? Perhaps they all think they have it in the bag.

Domitianus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can someone please take a pic of this women on their phone and publish it on here? Would help > folk to know what she looks like and if someone spots her the police might be able to scoop her. It depends what your aim is. Taking a photograph will be good evidence of that person's having been on your doorstep, and might also be useful to the police in making an identification. But if it's a prosecution that's wanted, it could well be that the evidence of more than one victim is needed. If that were the case, publishing a photograph here would probably scupper the value of any other person's subsequent assertion that they'd been done by the same perpetrator. It is not even certain that there is just one. It would also be the case that any photograph published here would most probably amount to a serious defamation. Defending any libel action can be very expensive and stressful, and not necessarily successful. And then there's the possibility of actual harm done to the person by the publication. You might want to argue that, however it pans out, it's all they deserve. You might still find it regrettable if it turned out that you'd made a mistake about their honesty.

>could you inspect the bike for sale and then if it's yours, tell the police? Do remember that bike frames usually have a unique serial number stamped on them somewhere, usually underneath the bottom bracket (position 1 in this pic) ime http://iapetesting.gomodesign.com/TipsAndTricks/BicycleSerialNumbers/index.html. A bit of 'smart water' or equivalent in a couple of locations is also a good idea. slater, thanks for giving good details of the incident - time, place, method, person, etc. I'm sure this sort of intelligence helps.

>This is the URL (web address) of the web site that is jumped to when you click on the Panic Button. And don't forget the Private Browsing option in your browser, so no trace left of your having visited the forum (or anywhere else, for that matter).

>That's exactly my point, the intent not to pay the fare, i.e. not having the >means to pay the fare has to be proved to be convicted of fare evasion. I don't think it can be exactly your point, as I still don't agree with you.

I guess the person who interviewed you was a revenue protection inspector who will submit a report to his rail company. I doubt whether it's yet been decided whether to prosecute or to claim a penalty or standard fare. In your position I think I would try phoning Southern's (I assume it's them) Prosecution or Revenue Protection Department, to get confirmation that they're dealing with the case, ask what options they're considering, and about their procedures and timescales, including whether they usually invite comments before any possible prosecution. I'd consider it important to make some kind of representations before they make a decision. Maybe on the phone, if it seems apt, but also backed up in writing. Far better that than leave it solely to the chance of a hurried conversation with a representative on the morning, if it should come to it, of a court appearance. A clear explanation of the circumstances and what my intentions had been, and presenting any evidence that they were consistent with my actual behaviour, and that there was no actual intent to evade paying the fare. One argument I'd make would be that to get to Canary Wharf and back from LBr, even without having got an ED->LBr ticket, and assuming you skip no more barriers :), would still be cheapest using a Z1/2 travelcard, so scacely worth the risk of a prosecution or even a penalty fare. The individual cash fares would I think be (not quite certain about the CW->ED, but I believe it's at least that): Peak Off peak LBr->CW 4.00 4.00 CW->ED 4.40 4.40 Total 8.40 8.40 Compare Z1/2 Travelcard 7.20 5.60 http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tickets/14416.aspx All the better if you've kept the travel card as evidence. Can you also prove that all the components of your journey on that day were necessary and took place? But do get a PAYG Oyster. Removes the risk, is capped at TC rates, and can be cheaper.

>and that i had offered to pay the fare or the fine right there, and as the law states for Fare Evasion, >they have to prove that you did not have the means to pay the fare at the time you were caught. No, the offence is that someone "Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof".

474 posts incanting the word 'Waitrose' in the forum since December 2006.

Not wholly sure it's to the point here, but Admin has recently (March 17) said "It is preferred that people attach photos to posts rather than embed them into messages as that facility tends to get abused." http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?12,27350,page=10

This is all getting a bit silly. http://www.met.police.uk/firearms_licensing/contact_us.html Still, it's good to learn that one can still own a muzzle-loading handgun.

>Luckily they sorted mine out with a refund and I removed the OEP using a ticket machine. >It had basically turned my card into a PAYG even though I had a zone 1 and 2 and was being charged >in those zones it was like it didn't realise. I guess that you touched in at LBr but didn't touch out at ED. Fine if you don't have an OEP still active on your card, but if you do the system will assume an uncompleted journey and charge accordingly. See my post of January 29, 12:34AM.

Thanks for the warning. Do we have any firmer information about the time of night these attacks happen and how the gang(s) operate?

Ginster, the TfL single fares page gives N.DulwichW.Croydon, M-F 0630-0930 and 1600-1900 ?2.20; otherwise ?1.70. On the Gold Card front, Boris Says: "Following discussions with Companies, TfL hopes to introduce PAYG Gold Card[*] benefits from the end of May." http://mqt.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/question.do?id=30225 . Until then you seem to be better off, if within gold card validity, with a paper anytime day return, there no longer being an off-peak DR. Ed: [*] But not Network Card

Pirate78, many thanks for the warning, and glad you got out of it fairly intact. If it's not too stressful, can you give any more details, like the time it took place, your location in the park when it happened, where they approached from and for how long they were visible before anything happened, whether they were after anything more than your mobile, whether you were carrying any bags, and whether they tried talking to you first or went straight to the violence. I too habitually, though infrequently, go through the park at night going to and from Sainsburys. To be honest, I'm not sure I'd feel safer walking round the road way.

HAL9000 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > From Aristotle's Prior Analytics: categorical syllogism - to be precise. That's so C4th BC.

And there I was, just about to post about how wonderful it was that the old traditions and practices were being kept up. For those in a seriously challenging frame of mind, don't bother about the spurious charity, just ask to see the guy's pedlar's certificate. Honest, guv. http://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q239.htm The Pedlars Act 1871 also prescribes that: "Any pedlar shall at all times, on demand, produce and show his certificate to any of the following persons ... Any person in whose private grounds or premises such pedlar is found: ... And any pedlar who refuses, on demand, to show his certificate to, and allow it to be read and a copy thereof to be taken by, any of the persons hereby authorized to demand it, shall for each offence be liable to a penalty not exceeding [level 1 on the standard scale]."