ianr

Why wasn't the playing field area included in the successful application for change of use, from B1 (research) to D1, last year? http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=14/AP/1426&system=DC

It's a pity that the discussion attempted in the Drawing room about the Defamation Act 2013 didn't get going. Admin, I think you should, to cover your personal position, check now whether all the requirements of para.2 of the Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013, as to what is required of a complaint, have been met. I suspect they haven't, in which case your immediate step would seem to be a response to the complainant along the lines of the last paragraph of column GC372 in the Lords Hansard discussion of the regulations: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/text/131119-gc0001.htm#13111956000130. At least the first speech is probably worth reading in full. There are other guides and commentaries to be found on the web too, but this one seems stated clearly and, obviously, with some authority. If you think they have been met, there is other prescribed appropriate action, involving contacting the poster(s) of the allegaed defamatory material. That said, IANAL.

If this is the place for posting photos from steveo's photobucket album, here's another: [Embedded link from i896.photobucket.com/albums/ac166/Steve_Overbury now removed] Why not just provide a link to Bruno, or as many other funny Brunos as you like, that we can choose to look at if we like, rather than turning the forum into a comic book. Any of us could make the whole thing unreadable and unpleasant in an instant if we wanted, simply by embedding images that rang a bell in our head.

Are they labels, with some kind of marking on, or just tags?

NHS England's role as commissioner of primary care services only dates from April 2013, when the PCTs disappeared.

> Plans may be being made. That's all. Things will certainly be going on in the background. AIUI from the NHS policy on branch closure, available at http://www.england.nhs.uk/medical/, if a contractor wishes to close a branch surgery, they have to apply to the NHS Area Team, to whom they are contracted, to do so, and then to be involved in discussions and negotiations with the team.

If you want to have a look at what I assume to be case law that looks as if it might be relevant to your circumstance, you could go to http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/ and download the cases provided under the Subject of Loading/unloading exemptions. From a very cursory and partial flip through the two compendious judgments (Flowers and Norrell) I'd be looking, as an outside possibility, at whether you were able to argue and prove that your parking was _solely_ for the _purpose_ of necessary collection (ie a vehicle was needed), and not just on the offchance that a collection might have been possible, _and_ that the full thirteen minutes should be considered as part of the collection process, despite the fact that it was not concluded with a collection. Was the collection even pre-arranged, or partially attempted? Even then, you still need to show that "the vehicle was not left unattended at any time while it was so parked." I think for that that you might need to show that you kept it under observation all that time. Anyway, look at the judgments and you'll get some flavour of the kinds of considerations and argument that might be relevant. How far you'd get with any informal representations to the council or whatever it is people do short of formal appeal, I've no idea. PS I've just had a look at your posting history, and it's reminded me that I PM'd you, after you'd said you'd attended some of the Max Clifford case, to ask you about how much competition there was for places in the public gallery at that court in any of the celeb cases. You didn't even reply to me.

Dopamine1979 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Why have you posted this? What do you actually want to say?

> Sign up to Freecycle Southwark. Or Southwark Freegle: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1027817,1027852#msg-1027852.

Switch it off for thirty seconds and reboot, just to rule out its possibly having got in a state. But more likely imo to be a signal reception problem. Look to the aerial, lead, or local interference possibilities. My TV's currently working fine on just a coiled up aerial lead, but will occasionally belch at an electrically noisy passing vehicle. Are the channels all on the same multiplex signal as listed here: http://www.ukfree.tv/txdetail.php?a=TQ339712?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am horrified that the council consulted with NO neighbours to this site and the application for 5 > new flats above Foxtons. That they've granted permission based on no neighbours being consulted > is appalling. I didn't spot any notice left on lamp posts in the area. It looks to me as if the planning officer's statement, http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/361360_1.pdf, (excerpt attached) explains why this was not needed. It's a change of use application for which prior approval is only needed on points concerning traffic and highways impact, contamination and flood risks; and all of these points seem to have been considered by the statutory consultees.

The joy of yumminess in Croydon: http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/YUMMY-MUMMY-covered-man-mini-Tsunami/story-21112303-detail/story.html.

All ward results are added here: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/1000/5_previous_election_results/3486/2014_council_elections

"Interestingly, women in the study with one child at the time of our 4-year follow-up tended to have had more relationship transitions, and were more likely to have experienced intimate partner abuse and a greater number of stressful life events and social health issues in the preceding 12 months. They were also more likely to have a low income, and to have experienced depression in pregnancy and the first 12 months postpartum." That's from the Maternal Health Study policy brief provided by the paper's authors. It's downloadable from https://www.mcri.edu.au/research/research-projects/maternal-health-study-2014/news-and-events/. There's also a video. The paper itself seems not to have reached the BJOG site yet: presumably it'll be in the June issue. When it does it's likely thst non-subscribers will only be able to see the abstract.

This one: https://www.facebook.com/muddybootsoutdoortoddlergroup? Ed: Apparently this one. https://www.facebook.com/muddybootsdevonshireroad

Some early Godard would make a nice accompaniment to the new y?-y? joint down the road.

> 8 pages was a good guess. > Anymore for anymore.. I think it is dribbling peacefuly to a close.

I'm not going to bother any more.

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > this is the real one https://www.gov.uk/tax-disc > > Note no 'direct' in url but there is a 'gov'! It leads to http://www.taxdisc.direct.gov.uk/EvlPortalApp/app/home/intro.

> Hi,website was taxdisc-directgov.co.uk as posted above. I think its now suspended. No it's still current and live: http://taxdisc-directgov.co.uk. The domain was registered on 1 May, the registrant being Identity Protect Limited, and the registrar 123-reg.co.uk (ie Webfusion Ltd). Never mind: they have more available.

"Before you contact our [Ofsted] hotline".

It's not necessarily absurd. They are separate issues, and I wouldn't personally have assumed that a late fine wouldn't apply. The fact that you couldn't play it on your own player is, in any case, not proof of its being totally unusable on any machine. But I do hope that they check discs that are reported unreadable.

> "nothing has changed in terms of security since > their report rating the nursery as 'good' so > doesn't really make any sense" There has been a change. There is the additional evidence of the recent incident, plus anything gleaned from their inspection this week. > > This is so typical of OFSTED. Christ I hate that > organisation with a passion! You're speaking from a bad past experience. My default reading is different, though I've no real knowledge of their competence. I assume that what has occurred is a suspension. I also assume that Ofsted probably thought that they had no real choice, given that they have a duty to uphold statutory requirements which include ensuring children's safety. Do look at what they say about suspensions, at http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/suspension-information-for-providers-parents-and-carers-suspension-of-childcare. It opens: "Sometimes we need to suspend a provider?s registration. We only do this if we believe a child or children may be at risk of harm. This does not always mean that the provider has done something wrong, but it does allow us time to investigate our concerns or give us or the provider time to take steps to reduce or remove any possible risk. We will end the suspension as soon as we are satisfied that children are not at risk." They appear very open to dialogue about rectification, so the sooner people get talking and acting about solving the immediate problems, which I expect will be detailed in Ofsted's formal notice to the nursery, the better. There are some people in the nursery this morning, though I don't know what that indicates.

1/30 of 8,000 ? isn't very much at all, is it. And then I suppose there's oats'n'stuff to pay for.

> i'm sure it'll make all the people on this thread, without > children at this nursery and therefore not about to struggle > to find replacement childcare for potentially weeks on end, > very happy that Ofsted have put their foot down and not even > given time for the management to fix the problems. I have no children, full stop, and I don't fit this characterisation. I too hope it's a precautionary temporary measure. If that's the case, perhaps the proprietors might even benefit from help or advice from a few of you.