ianr

No consolation, but worse things happen. Remember (Prof. Sir) Frank Kermode? "But when he was moving house about 10 or 15 years ago, the main parts of his library were packed up in boxes and left out on the street, as he was waiting for the removal men. He went inside for a few minutes and Cambridge Council?s rubbish collectors, thinking the boxes were rubbish, picked them up and threw them in the incinerator." http://selectedpoems.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/berryman-kermode-and-cambridge-council-incinerator-interview-with-natalie-galustian/ There are some more colourful versions -- the Indie obit even has him genially answering the door to the collectors and helping them with the shifting -- but the core remains in all.

I've found, for comparison, an instance where Ofsted looked into a complaint made in 2012 about a nursery that raised concerns about security. They made an unannounced visit. "We found that children were not fully safeguarded because the security system in place was not effectively implemented." "Following our investigation, we issued a notice to improve that asks the provider to safeguard and promote children's welfare to ensure the effective use of security systems and intercoms(Safeguarding and promoting children's welfare) "We will monitor the provider to ensure they meet these actions. The provider remains registered with Ofsted." http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/provider/files/2136755/urn/EY445340.pdf Two months later they made another inspection and gave it an Outstanding rating. Seven months later, following up on concerns, they made another inspection and gave it an Inadequate rating. The objects of their criticism included behaviour management, systems, management, leadership and understanding. It was also the case that there was a relatively new manager. As a consequence of the rating they will inspect again within 12 months of the date of that inspection. The registered person was also required to "ensure that children's behaviour is managed in a suitable manner." There don't appear to have been any other actions thought necessary.

> In my experience they just tell the nursery to shut, They seem to have more degrees of freedom than that, and a duty of circumspection and fairness that I think would make it unlikely. It would seem to me to imply an extraordinary finding, that the nursery was incapable of improving its ways, and that the children remained at risk. The following is from their pamphlet of information for parents about Ofsted's role in regulating childcare, downloadable from http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/information-for-parents-about-ofsteds-role-regulating-childcare. Enforcement "We have powers to make sure that providers keep to the requirements and conditions of their registration. If we find the provider is not meeting the requirements, we can take the following action. - We can write to the provider telling them what they must do to meet the requirements. We call this a ?notice to improve?. Normally this is sufficient to make sure providers meet the requirements. - We can send a provider on the Early Years Register a legal notice, called a welfare requirements notice. This sets out what the provider must do, and by when, to meet the welfare requirements. If the provider does not comply with this notice they commit an offence. - We can change or add new conditions to a provider?s registration. - We can prosecute a provider if they have committed an offence. - We can cancel a provider?s registration, in exceptional cases, if we believe nothing else will protect children or to make sure the provider keeps to the law. We may suspend the provider?s registration if we believe that children are at risk of harm, so we can investigate or take steps to reduce or remove the risk of harm. We have a separate leaflet available if you would like more information on suspension. When deciding whether we need to take action, or what action we need to take, we must be fair to the registered provider. We cannot stop a provider from earning their living without good reason. This means that we do not take action unless we have evidence of a failure to meet requirements or conditions of registration or unless we have reasonable cause to believe children are at risk of harm."

Gulp. This is getting precariously close to a One Foot In The Grave script. Tree of Hope actually have a contract with a wholly commercial firm, and take a cut of their income. If you want to chase them up too, some more details here: http://www.treeofhope.org.uk/donate/textile-recycling/

There's a video of the game beastie at http://www.canalturf.com/resultats-PMU/2014-05-15/le-croise-laroche/102050_prix-de-marquette.html. Was there some kind of demotion of Shayboob?

As far as giving personal details goes, I don't think he falls within s.168 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as he's not a rider of a bicycle; nor within s.170, unless you can prove (I think you cannot) that he was the driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle. I think he may have caused, or have been behaving in a way likely to cause, a breach of the peace.

> When did the OFSTED report take place? I was very > happy with the nursery until Christmas 2013. 8 November 2012. The report is here: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/filedownloading/?id=2142407&type=1.

Would fitting an alarm on the fire door resolve the problem?

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Unite, brothers and sisters, rise up against the censorship of the moralising thought police. Any particular instances?

I hope they find the _bike_. It was good to read the last chapter of Claire's trip blog on the suzuki page. I'm leaving the other pages for later.

I visited the scene today. I hadn't realised it was there. Here's a photo.

MothersInc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mothers inc. > "Because everyday should be Mothers day" "Because every day ..."

Thanks to all those who watched it on our behalf. I hope you all get a nice campaign medal. I was shamefully watching old Alan Bennett instead. A Bed Among The Lentils was still brilliant -- script, direction and Maggie Smith all.

I do recommend an 'accustomisation' session, at least before thinking of using the alphanumeric keyboard on a busy morning. When I tried an experiment last week it took some time to get both the amount of pressure (a determined stab) and offset (ie not directly over the character itself) right. The only good thing was that you do get screen feedback of any character input that it's registered.

> Jah lush, that is magic! Some of the credit is due to Julia Quenzler: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/12/09/article-2520719-19FB852800000578-26_634x444.jpg

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=+An+alleged+plot+to+takeover+some+of+Britain%E2%80%99s+schools+by+Islamist+extremists+has+been+reportedly+masterminded+by+a+ringleader+who+had+drafted+a+guide+document+on+the+process%2C+a+media+report+has+said.+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&gfe_rd=cr&ei=7sxvU-3PCIbR8ge7kICICw

See this thread downpage: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?12,1276910. Or this one http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?12,1043202.

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.