ianr

.

I see from the www.gov.uk/government/publications/planning-appeals-procedural-guide that the 2 March submission date for the statement of case is in fact that for the one from the council. So definitely the appellant's statement is the major thing awaited. I don't know if there's anything fresh in his other documents or whether they are just copies from the original application. The guide www.gov.uk/government/publications/planning-appeals-dealt-with-by-written-representations-taking-part may also be useful to anyone thinking of taking any action. The letter from Southwark will probably have referred to it too. I did look into the timeliness of the appeal submission (decision date 8/12/16, appeal form received 8/12/16), but the wording of the regulation which I take to be relevant is "serving on him, within the time limit. ... The time limit ... is six months from ... the date of the notice of the decision". > have others received the letter or just us in the flats- says can add comments by the 27/2/2017 What mode of submission, and submission to whom, does Southwark say the 27/2 deadline applies to? I hope it's not at odds with the dates stated by the PI themselves: Start Date 26 January; Interested party representations deadline 2 March (ie 5 weeks later).

If after those checks you are still in doubt about an URL, this article gives details of a couple of link scanner websites that can do some useful checks on them. http://www.pcworld.com/article/248963/how_to_tell_if_a_link_is_safe_without_clicking_on_it.html

The documents received by Southwark are at http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9564164. At "View associated documents" see the Appeal Form of 12/12/2016 for a list of documents (Statement of Case, and supporting documents) submitted, and the Start Letter of 30/1/2017, sent by the Planning Inspectorate to Southwark, for the procedural timetable. You can see that the Inspectorate will have access to all comments previously submitted (bar any that commenters choose now to remove), and that there's a deadline of 2 March for submission of any additional ones. The Planning Inspectorate web page for the appeal is at https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3164939, where there's also a timetable. I don't know whether the fact that the submission deadlines for both submission of the appellant's Statement of Case and of other representations are the same ( 2 March) means that the Statement of Case isn't made public before then.

A resulting Temporary Restraining Order, made in MA: https://twitter.com/joshua_eaton/status/825600563622604800.

> A curious thing to say. They weren't suing on the basis of injury. They were suing > on the basis he exceeded the executive powers. Incidentally, they won. In Judge Collyer's own words in her 12/5/16 judgment: "The House?s injury depends on the Constitution and not on the U.S. Code." The notion of justiciable injury seems to be deemed relevant. https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2014cv1967-73 The executive appeal against that judgment seems to be still pending. The latest I've found, http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2016/12/29/rapid-developments-in-house-v-burwell/, gets us to the beginning of this month. There's an overview at wikip:United_States_House_of_Representatives_v._Burwell

Root around for a folder such as C:\Users\[username]\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows Live Mail. This article also mentions some variety of deleted WLM folders. https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windowslive/forum/livemail-email/how-can-i-restore-my-pop3-mail-folders-which-were/07ad9f56-1138-4805-acaf-ae1f589bfc45

There was this attempt, after a House of Representatives vote, to sue Obama in 2014 over Obamacare. I don't know its outcome but it seems to have been regarded as an oddball action: "Legal scholars have questioned whether any member of Congress can prove injury by the president and therefore prevail in court." https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/us/politics/house-votes-along-party-lines-to-sue-obama.html. The conventional Congressional remedy would seem to be counter-legislation. WikiP:ExecutiveOrder:Legal conflicts. Current lawsuits are summarised in Wikipedia at Darweesh_v._Trump. The main article for the shemozzle seems to be Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.

Can someone please educate me on the recycling of clothes and shoes bit. I hope it means that they will take any that are not fit for re-use, but from which they can retrieve material usefully (as eg with shoddy). Is that the case?

What do you make of the conditions attached to its use? "The trap may be used only for the purpose of killing stoats and rats. The trap must be so placed that it can only be entered by way of an artificial tunnel which is suitable for the purpose." http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/1427/contents

Thank you. As in the attached, I assume. I don't think I've noticed ones like that before. Are they common? The van does seem to have gone now anyway. An orange level warning: banana skin and mush observed on pavement, west side of Crawthew, just south of junction with Frogley. It was a bit too messy for me to remove.

Do you mean the Goodnature A24 Rat and Stoat Trap?

The law requires a request from the occupier of the premises before any action is taken: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1712143,1712564#msg-1712564

> The only Windows 7 disk I have is Vista to Windows 7 upgrade. I have one of those. I tried booting from it on my W7 machine, and it did lead to an Install option. PS: actually, that was probably from running its setup.exe via Explorer. And iirc, it did offer an installation that preserved personal files and programs. But what it does offer on booting, via F8 Advanced Options, is repair and diagnostics utilities.

A DOS or Windows version of Unix tail utility will get to the file end, if Windows Event Viewer doesn't. This is a functioning very lightweight instance which I've just tried out on a 32MB file: https://sourceforge.net/projects/tailforwin32/ Forget that. Try this. https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb/help/928228/how-to-analyze-the-log-file-entries-that-the-microsoft-windows-resource-checker-sfc.exe-program-generates-in-windows-vista

Email just received from South Eastern: Dear passenger, As you may already be aware, a freight train derailed at Lewisham this morning, causing significant damage to the track. As a result, there is significant disruption across the network which may impact the journeys you make today. There are currently no services from Lee, Mottingham or New Eltham. And some trains between Cannon Street, Charing Cross and Tunbridge Wells will be diverted to run from London Victoria. Evening peak trains between London Cannon Street and the Medway Towns will now depart from London Blackfriars, the departure time will be the same as the normal time. There is also a shuttle service running between Sidcup and Dartford via Crayford. Ticket acceptance is valid on other routes including London buses and London Underground, and will be in place again tomorrow. We are also offering Delay Repay compensation at double the normal amount for those who have seen journeys delayed by 30 minutes or more due to this incident. Travelling tomorrow? While repairs to the track at Lewisham continue, there will be some changes to train services so please make sure you check before you travel.

SimonM Wrote on 28 September, 2007 14:45 ----------------------------------------- > >>Can Sharon Stone please come to Customer > Services"! > Probably in-store code for "the knickers shelf > needs restocking"? :)) Sadly, "SimonM died this morning (30 Dec)" 2011 http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,810069,813183#msg-813183

The manufacturers, Ceres Manufacturing Ltd, were in business from 1993 to 2001, when they were compulsorily wound up. So don't expect to be able to restore it to its original form.

There _are_ two pictures. Here are the lower left corners of each side by side. Note too the ?path leading left over the ditch. Their given dates are 1860 and c1860 respectively. There was a James Cleverley Mandy whose death, age 48, was registered in Southampton in 1869. He married Rosina Wilson widow of the late John Wilson of Calcutta, at Wandsworth Old Church on 16 July 1859 (FreeBMD; Times announcement of 20/7) If he's the man, the 1810 dating of Collage record no.18649 (signed watercolour of Monument to Sir Richard Allington, Rolls Chapel, Chancery Lane) is also questionable. I've not found any other JCMs.

They have two catalogue entries for the picture, and so possibly even two copies. Record No.20104, said to be from the Guildhall Library Wakefield Collection, is as you say. Record no.8107 is said to be LL / Court Lane (as in my first post) and to be in the main print collection. I think it's possibly not worth worriting about unless/until a pictorial match with any of the houses emerges. And that's assuming it's a truish representation. If I had to bet, I suppose I'd still go with my initial hypothesis as the most likely, if it is indeed LL, Camberwell.

Yes, being so close to the Crystal Palace transmitter you may well, given a goodish set and location, be able to get by with a small indoor aerial for all freeview radio and TV. I've just tried a bargain-shop 2 metre fly lead instead of my aerial, and even that on its own is able to pick up many channels. Some reception advice here: http://www.which.co.uk/reviews/indoor-aerials/article/how-to-set-up-an-indoor-aerial

The 1870 OS map (1:2,500, 25" to the mile) doesn't have any house on the west side of Dulwich Court Road at the dog-leg junction with LL. Nor any large house in the position of that in the painting; just Blenheim Villa, which is much closer to the road. See the attached , or the full map at http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/view-item?i=31376. The vertical grid lines are about 375 metres, 410 yards, apart) Correction - according to p.170 of A history of the Ordnance Survey (58MB PDF available at https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/about/overview/history.html) those 1:2,500 maps each covered an area 1.5 miles by 1 mile. That's consistent with the map's proportions, and with a distance I cross-checked on a recent online map. That would make the superimposed vertical grid lines 660 yards apart. My original calculation was based on what the catalogue said about the map's size.

> The LMA has it as an 1860 picture by Mandy of the junction of Lordship Lane and Dulwich Common. The search thumbnail is annotated: "Record: 8107 Dulwich/Camberwell View of Court Lane and Lordship lane, Dulwich; also showing cattle grazing and horse-drawn vehicles passsing on the road. 1860" But I don't see that as any better a match. The only possibility I can see in that area, looking at the 1862 Stanfords maphttp://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/view-item?key=SXsiUCI6eyJ2YWx1ZSI6IlN0YW5mb3JkJ3MgbWFwIER1bHdpY2giLCJvcGVyYXRvciI6MSwiZnV6enlQcmVmaXhMZW5ndGgiOjMsImZ1enp5TWluU2ltaWxhcml0eSI6MC43NSwibWF4U3VnZ2VzdGlvbnMiOjMsImFsd2F5c1N1Z2dlc3QiOm51bGx9fQ&pg=1&WINID=1484529722599#0yb4LPaDpY8AAAFZpKMCfw/31499, is perhaps the junction of Dulwich Common with Bark Lane (now Gallery Road). That would seem to make the large central house one of the C19 manifestations of Belair House, but I'm far from convinced of that, afaics from the 1890 photograph of its rear: the first at http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/quick-search?q=Belair&WINID=1484528532947. It is in the right place though. Playing around with http://www.suncalc.org/#/51.4425,-0.0779,21/2016.08.17/16:48/1 and taking a shadow length multiplier of 1.64 would I think place the viewing bearing more likely to be in the NNW area, depending on time of year. [ETA 16/1 01:29 to say I've changed my mind already, after having a look at the 1870 OS map. The orientation of the house is wrong, so unless the artist has taken a liberty so as to show its frontage...]

A couple more views of Rye Lane in 1913, which I've extracted from a 7MB English Heritage paper available at http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/myads/copyrights?from=2f6172636869766544532f61726368697665446f776e6c6f61643f743d617263682d313839332d312f64697373656d696e6174696f6e2f7064662f656e676c69736868322d36363834332e706466. Given that the 7 July 1913 was a Monday, I wonder if the two were actually both taken on Saturday 7 June. There was a series of photographs taken at different times of day on 7 June 1913, probably to assist an inquiry into whether the speed limit should be reduced to 10mph. Camberwell Metropolitan Borough Council had applied to the LCC for this but there had been objections. A "monkey parade" is described as "a weekend street theatre of promenading youth".

Given that Buddug has already provided a draft statement and has only to sign it, it possibly doesn't matter here. But generally anything that might potentially contaminate a witness's memory or account -- such as the provision of extraneous fresh 'information' -- is probably best avoided. A defendant could argue that the information had been put into the witness's mind after the event.