ianr

That's not the complete message surely? What are you doing when it appears? If you're having problems getting the internet connection and/or it seems to be running rather slowly then maybe the TW work really has disturbed the wires bringing it into your home. It might be a good idea to phone your ISP's helpdesk and tell them about your connection problem. They should be able to run a remote test and and find at least the location of any line problem. The driver is actually a piece of your system's software. Possibly the system is suggesting a fault with it as one possible reason for internet connection problems? That's why I'm interested in the content and context of the message. But going straight to your ISP might be the best way of homing in on the location of any problem, especially if it's under the pavement.

I see it's going to a second day. It's in the county court multi-track (rather than small claims or fast track), which aiui signifies a claim potentially over ?25,000. We don't necessarily know, of course, all the details involved, but opinions like Blackcurrant's look very sensible to me. Anyone really interested who has MS Teams installed could presumably seek viewing access: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/royal-courts-of-justice-cause-list/royal-courts-of-justice-daily-cause-list, case number H10CL139. I've no idea how restrictive they are, through necessity or otherwise. It's increasingly rare to find any substantive local court reporting nowadays; though county court actions don't usually get public or press attention anyway. I wonder what/who led the Mail to this one.

The up train I saw there this morning was I think a Class 377, of the 4-car unit type. Not that I know much about these electrics. I'm still waiting for a sight of Channel Packet, the first of the Merchant Navy Class, steaming up the main line.

The ongoing readers' comments, 1723 a minute ago, are interestingly robust. In passing I see that the "flaunt" count in the celebrity sidebar on the right today is down to 4. That's seriously low. Two or three years ago it might reach several times that. Hard times indeed.

They were running yesterday morning too.

trinidad wrote: -------------- > also search for your three councillors on > the council website and contact all three > individually. Do you tell each of them that you are also making representations to the other two? > Southwark tend to reject most appeals informally. Can you publish your figures please. And what do you mean by informally?

> Are they back to normal today? The Live Departures board suggests so: https://ojp.nationalrail.co.uk/service/ldbboard/dep/EDW [ETA:] And they're now keeping both doors of the eighth carriage closed rather than, iirc, just the rearmost one.

KidKruger wrote: > Something must have changed to render platform > 1 as unusable for 8-coach trains, because they?ve > been running them for decades through ED stn. When the train is longer than the available platform it uses Selective Door Operation (SDO: cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_door_operation ) to keep some of the doors closed. My first hypothesis was that their system is of the type that gets the necessary information, about how long the platform is, from an electronic beacon sited at or on the approach to the platform, and that it was that data propagation bit that's been faulty. In Usenet newsgroup uk.railway (also accessible via Google Groups) there's a simpler explanation offered: "AIUI the stop board was moved pending the withdrawal of class 455 stock at the end of the month meaning the trains (currently 8 car class 455) can no longer stop with all the doors on the platform." The stop board being the one saying where the head of a train of a given size should stop. When the trains do reappear, are they different stock, and do they require SDO? Did the trains that were running last week require SDO? Has the 8 car stop board been moved.?

Disruption at East Dulwich expected until the end of the day. Can you tell me more about the incident? A problem has been identified with the procedure for stopping trains formed of 8 coaches at East Dulwich, affecting Platform 1. This platform is used by trains towards London Bridge. In some cases, train doors would not be in the correct location alongside equipment on the platforms. Southern services which call at this station are generally formed of 8 coaches, and therefore we are unable to call at this station in this direction. A plan to reopen the platform is being formulated. Until we can confirm that the correct procedure is in place, we will only be able to use Platform 2. https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/service_disruptions/295465.aspx

There is more contact information for her on the BAMBA site https://bamba.org.uk/teacher-search/

Mscrawthew wrote: > I have lived in an area with > a CPZ and believe me, Why?

>

11 x 73

> 800......Thanks RD! What's the point?

> Sign seems perfectly clear to me, > so what's the problem exactly? I assume the problem perceived by the OP was that some people may assume that the sign doesn't apply on bank holidays; just as some don't realise that the sign is a prohibition, or one that that applies to their class of vehicle. Which is a real problem, if you think it's regrettable for people to unknowingly and unnecessarily commit themselves to a ?65 debt for just the benefit of passing the sign.

> Yes it's Monday to Friday regardless > of bank holiday or anything else! The only judgment I've found supports that view on bank holidays when the relevant Order is silent on the point: 5. In my opinion the argument put forward on this review by the Council that where no exemption is expressed in the Order then no exemption can be inferred to apply to Good Friday is a compelling one. I am of the opinion that the Order does apply on Good Friday. The only days on which the prescribed hours do not apply are Sundays. They appear on the face of the order to apply on all other days including bank holidays and other public holidays. Zammit v London Borough of Greenwich Date:23 July 1997 https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/ZAM250.pdf

> Otherwise vandalism. Ouch! Save that for costly harm, surely? More likely than that to be a piece of agit-trolling, done specifically in the hope of provoking a thread here just like this.

Following the instructions (not necessarily needed) at https://www.wikihow.com/Create-a-Slideshow-Using-IrfanView and using the excellent free (donations possible) multifunctional Windows program Irfanview — downloadable from https://www.irfanview.com/ and easily installed — I created the attached executable slideshow in a couple of minutes. I've saved it with a .scr extension (could also have been .exe) and tested it on my own PC. Just download to your PC and run. Windows may belch and say it's a suspect file, but offers you the chance to run it anyway. It really is safe to do so. Esc key will halt and close it. If you want something that you can upload to Instagram and that will run there, I've no idea whether this .scr or .exe file will, as I don't know anything about Instagram. Have you asked for advice on Instagram itself, or doesn't it allow that sort of thing?

Sue Wrote: ---------- > > "Crushed and devalued" was how the fake poster > described s/he (not sure which, his wife was also > involved) felt after visiting another local pub, > can't remember which one. > > It was a running joke on the forum for a time. Is this the original document? /forum/read.php?5,279511

> You will be covered for the (LTN) camera restrictions > within Southwark as shown on link below; https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/disabled-parking/parking-with-a-blue-badge?chapter=2 That seems to be a useful link to the page on Southwark Streetspace measure exemptions" for holders of Blue Cards, but I don't see any mention of "AD badge permits" or a general Southwark-wide freedom from the need to display the card. Were I such a person I'd want to see official terms and conditions rather than relying on a post here.

Yes. I happened to catch some expert answers to viewers' Covid questions on BBBC1 Breakfast this morning. I'll try to get an audio version of the relevant bit, which more or less confirmed my own view, that the LFT positive test should be taken as definitive. I'd also be inclined to add a few days' leeway once that stops, even with mask etc, at least before any contact with anyone particularly vulnerable. The guy did mention cases where traces of virus lingered on in a few people for months without their necessarily being infectious, though I suppose that doesn't rule out the possibility of a Typhoid Mary carrier type very occasionally existing. It's really all a matter of probabilities and making fairly reasonable judgements about them.

> I?ve got to have a blood test as > I?ve been suffering from bouts of > fatigue recently My understanding from that is that you've been told by a doctor that s/he wants those done, and that you've probably already been given the form to take to the phlebotomy unit for the sample to be taken. Is that the case? If it is, does the form specify any other items to be included in the tests, as I think is usually the case? And is your worry that your taking of the supplements will affect the results?

> I just used wwww.iloveimg.com which was > very quick and easy Too many wubbleyous: it's https://www.iloveimg.com. Cropping can be useful if any of the image is superfluous. Resizing will probably be the your main stratagem. Bearing in mind that even a laptop screen may be only 1200 pixels wide, an image with sides of just a few hundred pixel will usually be adequate. For a free image editor to install on a home computer running Windows, I'd recommend https://www.irfanview.com.

They seem to be taking what seems to be a pretty surefire way of dealing with the problem immediately, as set out in the Warning Notices section 3 of the Noise Act 1996. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/37/section/3 There's a readable account of this law and procedure at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/noise-nuisances-how-councils-deal-with-complaints#noise-at-night-warning-notices, and more in a Neighbour Noise booklet https://www.environmental-protection.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Neighbour-Noise.pdf.

For any debit card transactions, the OK given online would typically have signified that your bank had authorised the payment and reserved the amount as pending, and your available balance would have been correspondingly reduced. But it's for the payee to send another message to actually collect the money. They'd typically do this in the overnight batch, but could take longer. My own bank, probably typical, removes uncompleted pending transactions after seven days, though I understand from their help pages that the payee might still be able to try to collect substantially later. So Southwark's failure to collect could have been due, among other possibilities, to problems with their system's attempt to collect during the 'pending' period, or whatever period their agreement with your bank/card issuer allowed them. Something like that happened to me last year with my TV licence. My online payment went ok and I got an email saying my licence had been renewed. Two or three weeks later they sent a snail mail letter to say the payment hadn't been received — I think there was something in the letter to suggest or imply that it was a system fault somewhere — so could I please pay. And the rest of their communications were the standard warnings and threats that automated systems throw at you. So, if you used a debit card payment, it might be a good idea to see if you can get some hard facts from your bank: whether there's any historic record of authorisation for the payment, or of any attempts to collect it. I surmise that similar sorts of considerations might also apply with credit card transactions, but don't really know.