ianr

As found at www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk.

Lutefisk.

I sometimes think of it as a collection of overflow buckets.

Is it actually possible to arrange to collect commission from links that one's planted in a public forum like this? If so, how would you set about it? I'm thinking of the posts from faruk1, where the slightly unusual thing is the variety of external links he inserts, and that I've not seen any obvious mention of associate/affiliate schemes on the ones that I have looked at. I think he's looking for global coverage ( https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=faruk1+%22+I+am+a+new+member+from+Bangladesh%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 ) though he seems to have an enduring fondness for EDF. I hope it's been rewarding for him.

The libraries catalogue shows at least ten copies on order.

brapbrap, your point is already well established in English law: see Rex v Haddock (Is it a free country?, reported in A P Herbert, Uncommon Law): "The appellant made the general answer that this was a free country and a man can do what he likes if he does nobody any harm.... It cannot be too clearly understood that this is not a free country, and it will be an evil day for the legal profession when it is... and least of all may they do unusual actions "for fun". People must not do things for fun. There is no reference to fun in any Act of Parliament." The full text does naughtily appear on the web from time to time.

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well let's hope he's already someone's bitch. So what line do you take when, say, a sex offender with established British family here asks you to represent him against a decision to deport?

From Southwark's Byelaws for pleasure grounds, public walks and open spaces, available at http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/158/anti-social_behaviour: Cricket 18. No person shall throw or strike a cricket ball with a bat except in a designated area for playing cricket. They're presumably anxious to prevent public nuisance and injury to park users, and cautious of the risk of civil claims against them for damages that might arise from any accident. The people playing cricket might be similarly liable; the existence of the bye-law certainly wouldn't help their case. The fact that it's a public park doesn't in any case constitute a licence to do anything that risks harm to others. But of this case, I don't know any of the facts. There's a long history of trying to find a balance between the sometimes opposing needs and rights of game players and bystanders and passers-by. See for example the attached, from Smith & Keenan's English Law: Text and Cases.

Thank you. I'm tempted to make half a bucketload when the tuits fly in. I assume falafel will bear freezing?

I'm very grateful for your alerting me to TTIP and ISDS (which seems not to be a new thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement). I'll keep an eye on the protracted Philip Morris v. Australia arbitration that your party website mentions. It's documented here: http://www.ag.gov.au/internationalrelations/internationallaw/pages/tobaccoplainpackaging.aspx http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1494. I'm glad to see that the previous challenges, on grounds of constitutionality, seem to have failed, though I don't know whether that's to be taken as reason for optimism. Do you have any examples of damage already done as the result of ISDS arbitration? The EU commisioner, as quoted in the final paragraph of the Wikipedia article, would have us believe that any future trade agreement will "fully enshrine democratic prerogatives" and will explicitly state that legitimate government public policy decisions cannot be overridden. On TTIP, see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership, which has an appearance of balance.

A few minutes scanning the top-level categories on the website and I failed to find anything obviously briefing or informing on your topic, so had to resort to a search http://nhap.org/?s=TTIP, to find several disparate articles. This one http://nhap.org/dont-let-ttip-deliver-fatal-blow-nhs/, with lots of pointers to material elsewhere, looks probably as good a starting point as any for anyone who wants to try to educate themselves.

My Beatle Drive is still running to schedule, thanks to Frankie "Keep them dogies rolling" Multi-Laine Highway.

Well, if you're doing that I may as well throw in my Commer Chameleon. But they're both for the crusher.

> One mischievous man's account of April Fool's Day, 1825: Via letters of note on twitter. Probably first printed in 10 April 1792 edition of The Looker-On; author The Rev.Simon Olive-Branch (pseudonym of William Roberts).

What the judge said in sentencing: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/sentencing-remarks-hhj-leonard-r-v-clifford.pdf (45kB PDF)

You mean like a Beatle Drive?

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We all pay for transport infrastructure in our taxes but without > proportionate provision, cyclists are subsidising highly polluting, > road damaging, motorised transport users. Why do you keep on telling us this?

Cool.

Cool.

Ah! Thank you.

Couldn't avoid the bloody graphic (www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/dr-lol.gif) lollollol. Pass the apomorphine. Dopamine1979, have you had any other forum identities?

Come to that, a copy of this thread would do. Nevertheless, if anyone's interested in accompanying the forumite I mentioned, please let me know. She can only manage tomorrow though.

I've received several PM responses to my last post. I'd better make it clear that I'm not personally involved, in that I've no personal knowledge at all of any dog that howls. And I'm also not a greatly doggy person, certainly not enough to know whether, at least in some cases, what an owner was doing definitely amounted to mistreatment. I posted, to be honest, as in the message before that, in exasperation at the fact that, over years, nothing ever gets resolved - either through action, or in coming to a conclusion about what could or should be done or not or what other agencies could properly be expected to do. From the PMs and my conversation yesterday, I'm pretty clear that some of you do actually know the exact location of a dog that is said to sometimes howl unhappily. One of you has told me they would like to visit the owner, but not alone. It is said to be what looks a nice house. The PMer also thinks it quite possible that the owner could be ignorant of the dog's behaviour while they're away. Personally, if speaking to the owner isn't something that RSPCA do in these circumstances, when they have a very limited and perhaps not very compelling account, I think that a neighbourly visit or letter from two or three of you could be a good thing. You'd possibly be able to express your observations and concerns, talk with the owner, get a better idea of the situation, maybe even be able to offer help or advice. At very least it would probably leave you better informed. I just offer it as an optimistic idea. Though I'm afraid I don't feel up to taking part myself. Some of you probably know each other already, but if anyone wants to use me as a temporary confidential hub or relay, feel free to do so.

MissSophie> There is also an attachement of the public notice - clearly not public enough in my opinion! Can you perhaps attach it or a copy of it here. If that's not possible, I'd be happy to do any needed size reduction or whatever; you can PM me.

ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm commandeering this thread to test an URL which > failed the Phorum Phamily Philter, so that I had > to leave it out of the yellow lines thread > http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5 > ,1308806,1309072. I'll try selectively chopping > bits off until it gets through, and then see how > useful what's left is. [...] > Now, can anyone suggest what it is in the string > shown in Result.gif that causes the problem? Now testing exclusion of sub-segments of that URL. &location-local-authority-1=The%20London%20Borough%20of%20Fouthwark It appears to be the three-character string 2 0 S [without intervening spaces] that the Phorum filter is rejecting. Remedy: replace the %20 (the standard encoding in URLs of the Ascii Hex code for space), at least in those locations where the next character is an S, with an HTML code for space - ie an & immediately followed by #32; or nbsp; [end of sentence] Et voilà: https://www.thegazette.co.uk/all-notices/notice?start-publish-date=2014-01-01&location-local-authority-1=The%20London%20Borough%20of Southwark&categorycode=G411000001&location-distance-1=1&noticetypes=1501&numberOfLocationSearches=1&results-page-size=10 Alternative remedy: amend the filter list.