ianr

Sunday 7 May is International Dawn Chorus Day, http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08pdfyw. Please ensure that all your local avians are aware of this.

> The Animal Welfare Act stipulates dogs require off-lead running I don't see that the Act says that, or that it helps you here. Are you thinking of section 9, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/section/9? The council is not the person responsible for the dogs. On the questionnaire, I don't see how one can properly answer question 5. Do you think that dogs should be put on a lead when instructed to do so by an authorised officer? without knowing the grounds on which a council officer may have the authority to issue the instruction.

Some alternatives here. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1766705,1783399#msg-1783399

Yours seems to be in Band L, the second highest, for CO2 emission, which is used as the basis for the charge. You can check here: http://carfueldata.direct.gov.uk/new-vehicle-tax.aspx?t=23ude39.

> check out the coroner's reports of recent tragic deaths, > more often than not it's been the HGV driver at fault I assume you mean the ones here. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/subject/road-highways-safety-related-deaths/ It would be helpful if you could give the names of some of the cyclist ones please.

jacks09 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I thought it was even for cases that didn't go to court? No. The guidelines are specifically for courts, to deal with cases brought before them (regardless of whether or not a personal attendance is required). FPNs, for those who are offered and accept them, are unaffected. If you didn't even think you were speeding, I think it's rather unlikely that you'd come within the range of the changed penalties anyway: see http://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/blog/post/changes-to-fine-levels-for-speeding/. For details of more guideline revisions brought in today for motoring offences http://www.pattersonlaw.co.uk/uk-road-traffic-sentencing-guidelines-get-tougher-on-24th-april-2017/ looks like a good starting point. For other types of offence go straight to http://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/news/item/revised-magistrates-court-sentencing-guidelines-published/.

London Wildlife Trust / Friends of Dog Kennel Hill Wood / Friends of Green Dale are advertising their spring walk, tomorrow (Sunday) at 10am, at http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?6,1811053.

It's council officers who make the decision about any alleged statutory nuisance: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/noise-nuisances-how-councils-deal-with-complaints. Could someone please post notice here of when and where the appeal hearing will be. I assume it'll be Camberwell Green.

> We are taking this higher Is your daughter considering a civil claim for damages, of at least all the vet's bills, against the dog's owner and/or person in charge of the dog at the time?

I suspect the labelling is more in line with this model: http://www.brightonandhoveindependent.co.uk/news/environment/council-to-cordon-off-environmental-crime-scenes-in-fight-against-flytipping-1-7855012.

I was curious about the sticker, but no more than to snap it. I hadn't thought of them as dangerous, btw.

If it was plasterboard, that would seem to be the answer in itself. It's too thin on its own to provide much support. Your choice then would seem to be between locating the wooden timbers on which it's supported and hang from those, if you can loacte them and thay match your item, or using particular hanging devices in place of a plain screw. Googling on "hanging on plasterboard" provides loads of advice pages. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/mar/01/diy.homes7 offers a general summary.

Since it's only property owners who can give permisison for the installation of a motor cycle anchor, isn't this ?500 going just to those who are relatively most well-off? The anchors I've seen advertised on the web seem to be in the ?50 region. What exactly is done for the additional ?450?

Here are a couple of pictures of the Oglander Road tip.

The last-published annual report and accounts of Picturehouse Cinemas Ltd can be downloaded from https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02310403/filing-history. Picturehouse Cinemas Ltd appear ultimately to be fully owned by Cineworld Group plc http://www.cineworldplc.com/.

There were an average of 70 paid staff (58 full-time equivalents) for the year to 31/3/16, and 80 (55 FTE) for the previous year. Of those, 38 were involved in "Collection and building" (previous year 49). The total annual staff costs were ?1.879m, (previous year ?1.85m). The "Aggregated cost of senior management team comprising of Directors and Chief Curator" were ?374,000 (previous year ?338,000). All these figures are from the accounts section of the 2015-16 annual review (22 MB) available at http://www.dulwichpicturegallery.org.uk/about/annual-reviews/ According to the report in the Print Charity Details option at http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1040942 Dulwich Picture Gallery Trust reported 58 employees, 50 volunteers for the year ending 31/3/16.

> I feel that dbboy has spotted an antimony. I'm lead to a different conclusion.

TY

> Holidays could still be allowed if the the head decides there are special circumstances Sorry, it has to be "exceptional circumstances", as your example would be. "Special circumstances" belongs to the superseded 2006 regs.

TillieTrotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > By my understanding Headteachers can now only > grant authorised absences for exceptional circumstances Yes, since September 2013. (Previously was as in http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/1751/regulation/7/made ). > which include close family bereavement There is nothing specified, other than in an LA's code of conduct. I doubt anyone would dream of refusing such leave, and to do so could well be deemed so unreasonable as to be unlawful. > and religious holidays. Many could well be exempt, as in s.444(3) of the Education Act 1996: The child shall not be taken to have failed to attend regularly at the school by reason of his absence from the school? (a) with leave, (b) at any time when he was prevented from attending by reason of sickness or any unavoidable cause, or © on any day exclusively set apart for religious observance by the religious body to which his parent belongs. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/56/part/VI/chapter/II/crossheading/school-attendance-offences-and-education-supervision-orders

> So now you all know. If you're in a bad mood, what do the customers matter. I don't know. I don't have enough information to judge, or particularly to make your inference. Or have I missed an invisible smiley? My default interpretation of her "There's only me and I was on a bad mood", without knowing any more of the interaction, would be that she'd decided to delay contacting you until she felt better able to deal with it properly. Not ideal, and expressed rather risibly, but perhaps not the worst course. Was it something requiring immediate action? Had you been left in a state of not knowing whether your complaint was going to be dealt with? Do you think it would have been dealt with if you hadn't gone in again? Did she express any regret for not acting earlier?

http://www.civilrightsmovement.co.uk/IPCopyrightNotice.html http://www.civilrightsmovement.co.uk/right-freedom-speech.html

The judgment http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2017/28.html quotes the magistrates as having said it was 95% before this break, and 90.2% afterwards. Some of the previous loss, btw, will have been a week's holiday her (separated) mother took her on in February. Ma paid her own penalty charge for that. I hadn't realised the girl was only six at the time. I think back on primary school as huge amounts of wasted time, if you're thinking in terms of academic achievement. Anything interesting a kid does at that age will be educational, and I don't think anyone's career hopes are going to be damaged by a few weeks out of school at that age. What's going to happen now? Probably some will continue to take the break and pay the penalty charge, with prosecutions a rarity. Local authorities have to provide a code of conduct for issuing penalty notices, containing "the criteria that will be used to trigger the use of a penalty notice". So if there were a groundswell of public opinion, some might perhaps be persuaded to have a more relaxed code, at least for younger children. That might be conceived as clashing with this judgment; but even if so, who would then have the wish and locus standi to seek judicial review -- the secretary of state?!

The previous regulations required that "(b) the proprietor, or a person authorised by the proprietor in accordance with paragraph (1), considers that leave of absence should be granted due to the special circumstances relating to that application. (4) Save in exceptional circumstances, a pupil shall not in pursuance of paragraph (3) be granted more than ten school days leave of absence in any school year." The current regulations say instead: "the proprietor, or a person authorised by the proprietor in accordance with paragraph (1), considers that leave of absence should be granted due to the exceptional circumstances relating to that application." "Exceptional circumstances" is common enough in law. Like a "reasonable person", it gives scope for application of whatever are thought to be current relevant standards and considerations. The previous discussion was at http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?29,1114907,1115366.