ianr

Are there any land line phone services that don't yet receive text messages (delivered by an automated voice if you don't have a text-enabled phone)?

handymaneast dulwich Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Seen 2 thefts myself within 2 months and also > stopped one from happening on Saturday. Well done. Was it just one person or two on the bike? How early did you spot them, and was there any chance of maybe grabbing one? They do get caught sometimes. There's a report in the latest Southwark News:a thief and his receiver jailed for 3-4 years for multiple offences. http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/mobile-phone-thieves-banged/

I doubt they have any statutory wayleave. See for example https://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/home/contactus/wayleaves/wayleaves.do and (you're not the only one) some similar cases via http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/garden-dug-up-and-cable-installed-on-my-property-without-permission. It'll get resolved. Even if you had been the customer their action doesn't sound reasonable.

I had some kids throw stones at me when I was cycling past Bullace Row (just north of Camberwell Green) on my way home. But that was over twenty years ago, and the only hooliganism I remember directed at me locally while cycling. I think I stopped off at Camberwell nick to let them know but found it closed, so just left it at that. My main concern was that it's the sort of thing that could just lead to serious harm, and the sooner they gave it up the better. As it was, I never saw them again anyway.

dulwichdentalclinicu wrote at 09:39: > professional clinic for teeth whitening then you can visit www.dulwichdentalclinic.co.uk Note that dulwichdentalclinic.co.uk, domain registered June 2016, is NOT Dulwich Dental Clinic Ltd, of 78 LL.

"Posted by tomdhu November 15, 12:13PM" "Thanks for your assistane, I now have it fixed." http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?9,1750798,1753327#REPLY

Who owns the garden? Who has legal use of it? Does your neighbour, their customer, live in the same house? Has anyone given Virgin permission to lay the cable where it is?

I've had the same trouble with a couple of devices, before learning the lesson of recording the menu schema. I suspect that you'll need to find a different submenu. In theory you could traverse the menu tree and do it blind by trial and error. A few signposts in the shape of Chinese characters to be looking for would provide additional help. I've checked some of my Chinese menus against the Google Translate Chinese versions. What I got for "Chinese" and "English" (ensure upper case first letter) seemed to match my menu items. Check just the right hand two symbols if there are any others: they're probably just qualifying the type of Chinese. My Chinese ereader actually kindly displays some language names in English or the other language's own character set, even when the device is configured to show the menus in Chinese. Probably just as well, given that it seems to dynamically rejig menus from time to time. I also still have to discover whether or not my voice recorder actually contains, as advertised, an FM radio function. There's an RFSetting menu but entering it turns the menus back into Chinese. Damned cunning. The first two attached menu items are from the ereader. The third, from the recorder, says Language Set Chinese Traditional English

pipsky2008> Dear Cllr Dr. Hamvas pipsky2008> Please would you post the most recent and detailed Peckham Rye ward map pipsky2008> that you know of for reference sake. I have asked the same question to pipsky2008> Cllr Barber for a similar map of East Dulwich ward boundary. Polling districts, and wards (as in map http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?5,file=239810, attached to post http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,336529,1750855#REPLY), are among the overlays available at http://maps.southwark.gov.uk.

pipsky2008> I appreciate you have already described the East Dulwich ward boundary but would you please post pipsky2008> the most recent and most detailed ward boundary map that you know of, for future reference sake. Polling districts, and wards (as in the attached), are among the overlays available at http://maps.southwark.gov.uk/.

> but bear in mind you have to pay fees (I think it was about ?110) The fees do vary with amount claimed: https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/court-fees. Do you perhaps not have an agreed variation of contract? What you describe suggests that you have agreed to forgo the future sessions, and the nursery has agreed to forgo the fee, and confirmed so in writing. Eg: http://www.out-law.com/en/topics/projects--construction/construction-contracts/variations-to-contracts-and-changes-in-the-law/ http://consumerhub.eversheds.com/specialism/how-effective-are-variation-clauses-in-your-contracts/

>This is sobering. Attachments: Enemies.jpg (40.4KB) I don't know where you got it from, but the English caption is incorrect. Here's a clearer and fuller version of the original: http://www.hans-dieter-arntz.de/bilder/volksverraeter.png The headline actually says: "Betrayers of the People Expelled From The German Community." The text declares that the following persons, located abroad (they had already fled the country), have been deprived of German citizenship, having acted in breach of their duty of loyalty to the reich and the people. Of those in the first row that I can find mention of (all politicians), Scheidemann, Wels and Breitscheid were leading members of the SDP, Pieck a communist. None a lawyer. Scheidemann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_Scheidemann Wels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Wels Pieck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Pieck Breitscheid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Breitscheid

Shaggy> One interesting point, though, is that if it does turn out that Article 50 is Shaggy> reveresable, then the courts will quash Thursday's ruling. Or if in doubt, refer it to the CJEU, as has at least been mooted by some, even before the referendum; see eg http://www.howtocrackanut.com/blog/2016/11/3/why-an-appeal-of-the-high-court-parliamentary-brexit and https://eutopialaw.com/2016/07/08/what-next-an-analysis-of-the-eu-law-questions-surrounding-article-50-teu-part-one/. I suspect rather an outside chance, but it does promise possible further dark comedic potential, for them as can take any more, that is.

There's now an HTML version of the judgment available at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/2768.html.

Yes, the Subject line, as well as the content, is editable when you select the edit window. I assume you're wanting to change what appears in the list of threads. To do that, you just need to edit the opening post in the thread.

> It is annoying and you do sometimes wonder if they do it deliberately. Today I tried to > buy 6 items from Superdrug, of which 5 were more expensive at the till, making the total > cost >30% over what I expected. If it is done deliberately or recklessly I think it could even be an offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. It would be relevant to see if it's occurring in more than one branch. In any case it's contrary to official guidance on proper practice. "2.1 Indicating two different prices 2.1.1 The CPRs prohibit traders from giving misleading information about prices, which could include indicating a price for goods or services which is lower than the one that actually applies, where this would cause, or be likely to cause, the consumer to take an different transactional decision. In many cases, a different transactional decision is likely to mean whether or not to buy a product, but it could include other decisions taken about transactions. 2.1.2 You should not therefore show one price in an advertisement, website, window display, shelf marking or on the item itself, and then charge a higher price at the point of sale or checkout." https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/31900/10-1312-pricing-practices-guidance-for-traders.pdf See also http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-protection-from-unfair-trading-regulations-2008 re additions to the regulations. In practice I'd expect any reputable chain to honour the shelf price unless it's a crazy one, and maybe throw in an ex gratia something if you take it up with head office. Failing that, or if it seems serious or persistent, you can always just pass on the information to local Trading Standards, http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200098/trading_standards/1462/1_information_for_consumers.

The judgment in the Court of Appeal hearing in which his conviction was quashed, [2016] EWCA Crim 452, has now been published. There's a copy at https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans-1.

> By the way, for Dylan fans, if you haven't come across it, check out dylanradio.com. Thank you for that. I'm currently listening on it to a segment of Daniel Mark Epstein's The Ballad of Bob Dylan: A Portrait.

Have a look at the website, http://dulwichlaser.co.uk/. They're at 2a Lordship Lane. It's owned by Dr Ali Reza Nadjafi, a dentist (registered 1998) who owns and works at Dulwich Dental Clinic at 78 LL. Both businesses were set up over five years ago. [2nd edition] And here's an enthusiastic article, written several years after a course. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dina-mikhails/all-you-ever-wanted-to-kn_b_7683978.html Anyone wanting to DIY, it looks as if you can pick up a machine second hand for maybe ?10-15,000. [3rd edition] The hair removal photographs on the website that I've checked seem, btw, to be library photographs, used across the web, rather than of work actually done at the clinic

The actual article is http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/manpower/how-to-solve-the-perennial-problem-of-seat-hogging. I expect DF probably googled something like "hogging seats in cafes" and lighted just on the image. There are several articles available, though none of them specific to ED. I'm sorry the OP's question hasn't always been respected and that the thread has been diverted, and for my own part in colluding with that. I think I was drawn in just by my dislike of having the illustration forced on me. I may even have believed at the time that this was already in the Lounge. Enough.

It's Starbucks in the Bishan Community Club, Singapore. Mr Fox will be able to provide more details.

Rubbish was dumped on at least three different parts of the EDH site, all between Monday afternoon and last night. Possibly there could be more that's not visible from outside. I'm attaching a photograph of the largest one I could see, taken from East Dulwich Grove. It also shows the fence, between the hospital and the school sides of the site, part of which was broken down. At least seven of the vehicles that left the site this morning were waste collection trucks like the one in the second photograph. [The edit was to replace photo 2 with a version with registration number blanked]

rendelharris Wrote: --------------------- > At 20MPH 90% of pedestrians survive, at 28MPH+ 50% die. That's a > plain fact which is rather difficult to ignore. Rospa cite 2010 figures of a 7% pedestrian fatality rate at 30mph. http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/drivers/speed/inappropriate/ That seems to be based on a 2010 DfT paper. A 2011 literature review paper (Rosen et al.) referred to in http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Speed.pdf [PDF, 279kB], has a 50% fatality rate reached at 50mph. There are other research papers out there too. What is your source? Rospa also say "The risk of a pedestrian who is hit by a car being killed increases slowly until impact speeds of around 30 mph. Above this speed, the risk increases rapidly". That seems to me congruent with the attached risk curves, from the SWOV paper. Thirty mph is about 48km/h.

What was the council's legal basis for any action, once it was established that the coach wasn't abandoned? It's taxed and MOT'd, and I've seen no mention of evidence of its being operated for the carriage of goods or passengers

Lowlander Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 1. Hasn't it been 20mph for years? The original order was made in 2014 and can be downloaded from https://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/3116/frequently_requested_traffic_orders. It specifies roads by bounded areas, apart from some explicit exceptions. The current proposed order amends that one "so as to positively identify all roads, streets and parts of within the London Borough of Southwark in which the maximum speed limit of 20 miles per hour will apply, that is:-", and thereafter follows a list of ?hundreds of roads. It's at https://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2558/traffic_orders. Whether they differ at all in effect, I don't know. Quite possibly not. A note says that "This change is at the request of the Metropolitan Police Service, and is intended to provide a robust basis for camera enforcement of the speed limit." There are interesting national sample statistics on compliance with speed limits in free-flowing conditions. Those for 2015 included 20mph limits for the first time. "For all vehicle types, 20 mph roads had the lowest level of speed limit compliance in 2015." 84% of cars observed were over the 20mph limit. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/free-flow-vehicle-speeds-in-great-britain-2015