ianr

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.

I appreciate the appreciation, but I'm quite happy to be left out of it. Thanks. This morning i has mostly been looking up Hermione Granger, Cuthbert Cringeworthy, Leo Baxendale, Cadbury Report, Bubble Act, Markov chains, and "mainly been eating".

Sue, the text looks to me more like the pseudo-English strings generated and used, among other things, to fool spam detectors. In earlier days they were used in psycholinguistics experiments on meaningfulness. Have a look at, say, http://agiliq.com/blog/2009/06/generating-pseudo-random-text-with-markov-chains-u/, for examples. I don't know exactly what's been published where in your case, but it sounds quite possibly to be just common, maybe 'random', mischief making. Maybe not unlike the Bot messages that appear on the forum sometimes. Interesting though.

What do you mean by "provide a homepage"?

Impatient at the failure to locate this animal (first mate found his pretty quickly) I set off for the area this afternoon. Parakeets, blackbirds, booming car and van sound systems, even the occasional plane, but not a yelp. So I did a domestic architecture meander instead. But on the way back I had a conversation with someone who did mention sometimes hearing another dog that (in more or less their own words) would howl as if it had been left on its own. They thought that was from about a couple of blocks down Dunstans from its junction with Underhill -- which would put it in the vicinity of the junctions with Cornflower or Balchier.

Ah, a temporary trafic regulation order (TTRO). There's a useful 2013 Commons Library paper containing some stuff about those too: http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06013/roads-traffic-regulation-orders-tros/.

"Barking/distressed dogs on Dunstans/Balchier Street" 15 August, 2013 http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1164040,1164186 "Dog howling around Dunstans Road" 17 September 2012 http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,962061,962201 "Howling Dog Choumert Road / Danby Street" 10 July 2012 http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,918314,918380 "Howling dog in Crystal Palace Road ( ? )" 24 April 2008 http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,118407,118735

Thanks John. We're learning fast. So, as I read it, a change from A1 shop to A3 eat/drink-in establishment _will_, by virtue of the second of the now-confirmed Southwark directions, require planning permission if within one of the specified areas. I'm attaching an excerpt from the list of Protected Shopping Frontages that includes those in Lordship Lane. There's been a lot of thinking and work going on. The planning committee full March 2014 report at https://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/3640/protected_shopping_frontages-article_4_direction sets out the considerations that led them to override the default statutory permissions.

If I were a resident, I'd be seriously wondering if it were worth a punt on the belief that the yellow lines are unauthorised and hence legally ineffectual. But please don't blame me if that's not the case. Someone might also want to check whether there's any legal requirement for accompanying signs. The information, one way or the other, is out there and probably quite easily findable.

KalamityKel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DrinkingBuddy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > A1 can be converted to A3 for a period of up to > > two years without permission. > > What's the point of classification then? There's a Mar 2014 Commons Library briefing paper, Planning: change of use system, that looks like a useful intorduction to the topic. It's http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01301.pdf. It covers some currently proposed changes, but does go back over recent changes as well. That includes the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2013 (SI 2013/1101), http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1101/pdfs/uksi_20131101_en.pdf which came into force on 30 May 2013. That's the one that enabled (Article 7) a new class D, for temporary changes of up to two years, which seems to be what's being talked about here. It seems to restrict the permitted development to areas under 150 square metres. I'm more or less just relaying what I've found at a speedy first pass, and no expert, so I'm quite liable to misunderstanding, and open to education. For more material on motivation, beyond the briefing paper and the explanatory notes to any SIs, I suppose you'd have to look at Hansard and any media coverage on the policy. http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/changeofuse/ is also good for summary of the rules.

I'm interestedly flummoxed too. It may be quite different but I'm reminded of a previous occasion when some road markings went up, at our expense, later to be carefully removed. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,549542 I don't think anyone at the time bothered to check the reason, whether it might have been a case of someone jumping the gun as far as formal authority went. On the question of authority I'm even more flummoxed by one aspect of the discussion, perhaps because of my lack of familarity with the nuts and bolts of local government as now is. I do understand that community councils can be allocated control of smallish funds, which they can allocate in prescribed areas, and that of course they can express opinions on anything of relevance. But what actual power and function do they have in matters of traffic management decisions and actions? A priori, perhaps naïvely, I'd have assumed none, other than as a stater of opinion.

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. https://www.thegazette.co.uk/all-notices/notice?text=Southwark&start-publish-date=2014-01-01&categorycode=G411000001&location-distance-1=1&noticetypes=1501&numberOfLocationSearches=1&results-page-size=20 Now, can anyone suggest what it is in the string shown in Result.gif that causes the problem?

I've just made an epistemological breakthrough. The London Gazette seems to be the place for public traffic orders. I've not checked but assume that publishing them there is or helps meet a statutory requirement. Searching there is easy too. Here is a template for finding all traffic management orders (LG Notice Code 1501) for Southwark made from the beginning of the year https://www.thegazette.co.uk/all-notices/notice?text=Southwark&start-publish-date=2014-01-01&categorycode=G411000001&location-distance-1=1&noticetypes=1501&numberOfLocationSearches=1&results-page-size=20. There are currently 44 of them, some made by the council, some by TfL. It's then very easy to filter that set in various ways. Including text "Hindmans" narrows it down to just the 10 April one that I mentioned above. The absence of the one I quoted suggests that it never became an actual order. The yellow lines remain a mystery. Perhaps it's the yellow-liquid-in-bottles merchant found a new hobby. ------------------- [Note: the Phorum software is stopping me from posting my full text. I'm experimentally removing one sentence at a time; so if you read just this, be aware that there's a missing sentence somewhere, that I'll try to smuggle in later, once I know which it is. OK it was the template URL that Phorum didn't like. That's a difficult one. It might take some time. In the meantime, the LG home page is www.thegazette.co.uk/, and the Notice Code, Borough and Start Date you'll have to select yourself.] [update: the search template URL is now re-included in an acceptable form. I've had to leave out just the string specifying the borough. I've also corrected the LG Notice Code above, from 501 to 1501. And included "Southwark" in the URL as a required text string, which I think will exclude most TfL orders.]

_A_ document _has_ been posted here, according to Google. It's http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?5,file=121847‎. I've not been able to find the post to which it was attached. Nor, yet, any mention of it on the Southwark website. Perhaps we should have competitions to find things there. In principle all council public notices should surely be easily findable on the council website. Alternatively perhaps we should read, copy and index all the notices they publish each week in Southwark News. This one can't, given the dates, be the immediately relevant or sole document, but does it provide a clue as to what might be afoot? It reads: "LONDON BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1984 SECTION 14(1) (HINDMANS ROAD) TEMPORARY WAITING AND LOADING RESTRICTIONS TEMPORARY PROHIBITION OF TRAFFIC 1. The Council of the London Borough of Southwark hereby gives notice that because of flood alleviation works to be carried out by Thames Water / MGJV in the above named road, it intends to make an order the effect of which will be to prohibit vehicular traffic from waiting and loading at any time in part of Hindmans Road. 2. Whilst works are in progress, and whilst the authorised traffic signs are displayed, no person shall cause any vehicle to wait, including waiting for the purpose of loading and unloading at any time in Hindmans Road, on both sides, between No?s 146 to 134 and No?s 135 to 127. 3. An alternative route will not be required. 4. Exemptions will be provided in the Order to permit reasonable access to premises, so far as it is practical without interference with the execution of the said works. 5. The restrictions will not apply to any vehicle being used in connection with the said works, or for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes or anything done with the permission or at the direction of a police constable in uniform. 6. The restrictions will come into force on the 27th January 2014 and will continue until the 7th March 2014 or until the works have been completed whichever is sooner. 7. Further information may be obtained by contacting Road Network & Parking Management on 0207 525 2014. Dated this 16th January 2014 Nicky Costin Road Network & Parking Business Manager Southwark Council Environment & Leisure, Parking & Road Network Management, PO Box 64529 London SE1 5LX Ref: 2198" Google did also btw throw up another proposed Traffic Order (representations to be made by 1 May), this one about relaxing controls slightly, at lordship_lane_area_traffic_order_and_signs_review_-_public_notice_dated_10_april_2014 which is a 2.9Mb PDF file. The contact email address for these things seems to be [email protected].

I doubt it's incorporated. Any company has to include its name, number and regstered address on its website. Besides, the only registered Fix-PC Ltd I can find is Scottish. Am I right btw in thinking you are Knights Tutoring?

You are apparently enormously more trusting than me. You say they are local. How do you know that? Do you know who they are? I'm also wondering why their archive of testimonials dates back to February 2013 when their domain, cheapest-web-design.com, obtained through Domains By Proxy LLC, thus preserving their anonymity, was only registered in December 2013.

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's funnier than you know. Someone of my > acquaintance designed Pretty's web site having > first registered the name > prettytraditional.co.uk. > > Chris complained that he wasn't receiving any > emails and only after intense investigation was it > discovered that the email address on the site was > coded as [email protected] > Neither prettytraditional.co.uk or prettyvacant.co.uk has been registered as a domain, according to Nominet.

Sue Wrote: > I did auto top-up in the days before my freedom > pass. It was very easy and meant I never had to > worry at all about the Oyster card running out. > > But I agree if you are travelling beyond the > Oyster zone you do still need to use a ticket > office, at least until such time as they change > the system - I don't think you can get the add-on > ticket at a machine, can you? You can actually, at least on the Southern machines. I've just experimented with the ED one. You need to select Boundary Zone n (where n=6 for a freedom pass holder). It finds itself among all the 'B' stations.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Indeed it does. That is VW Autostadt, Wolfsburg, isn't it? As also in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostadt.

Application now online: http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9554210

The bye-laws, which you can download in full from http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2859/dog_ban_byelaws, were made in 1996. I've quoted the dogs-on-leads one in http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1272804,1272848#msg-1272848. Here's a bit more: 1[6] Notice of the effect of these byelaws shall be given by signs placed in conspicuous positions at the entrances to each of the dog prohibited areas, and at the entrances or on the approaches to each of the canine faeces removal areas and each of the dogs on leads areas. Schedule 1 DOGS PROHIBITED Peckham Rye Park - 2 Children's Playgrounds - Adventure Playground - Bowling Green - Ornamental Gardens - Tennis Courts - Putting Green - One 'O' Clock Club Schedule 3 DOGS ON LEADS Peckham Rye Park - Central Landscaped Area

Any photographs?

I have some paints.

There's a fuller version of this news release at http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1293510,1293510 or http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1629/planning_approval_granted_for_innovative_dulwich_and_herne_hill_flood_prevention_project.

Might they sometimes decide not to empty a blue bin if it's got precious little in it? I'd be happy with that if so, even with one a quarter full: nothing there to rot, and time saved. In fact I'd be quite bothered at the waste if they trundled off for emptying a bin that contained just a few bottles and papers. If there are only a few bags in the green bin on the evening before collection, I sometimes stick them in a neighbour's part-filled bin.