ianr

> It's only picking up DVB channels and not Freeview or Freesat, and I've > got no HD channels. Do I need a dish for this or is DVB actually Freesat. DVB is just Digital Video Broadcasting. It can be eg DVB-T (terrestrial, ie Freeview, signal from an aerial), DVB-S (satellite), DVB-C (cable) ... You mention Virgin, so perhaps you are using their cable service. I gather that some of their older or cheaper set top boxes don't provide HD. The same goes for Freeview boxes. Your TV may be "HD ready" rather than full HD; ie its built-in tuner doesn't pick up HD signals, though the set will presumably be capable of displaying in HD an HD signal input from an external source.

From the Southwark dog byelaws http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2859/dog_ban_byelaws "1(3) Byelaw 6 applies to the public walks, pleasure grounds and open spaces or parts thereof described in Schedule 3, hereafter referred to as the "dogs on leads areas". 1(4) Byelaw 6 does not apply to any roads within the dogs on leads areas for the time being designated under section 27 of the Road Traffic Act 1988." It is actually byelaw 5, not 6. I assume that 1(4) is also meant to refer to it: byelaw 6 is actually about removal of offenders. Byelaw 5 says: "5. Dogs on Leads No person in charge of a dog shall, without reasonable excuse, permit the dog to enter or remain in any of the dogs on leads areas unless the dog is held on a lead and is restrained from behaviour giving reasonable grounds for annoyance." Schedule 3 includes in the "Dogs on lead areas": "Dulwich Park ? Central Area & Sports Pitches Peckham Rye Park - Central Landscaped Area". I'm not sure how conclusive the "central" is, but I think I'd assume it excludes the entrance and road areas, regardless of whether or not 1(3) applies. Perhaps the signs indicate the boundaries of the intended areas.

Just wait until the potholes are activated and the disappearances begin. First cats, then cyclists and pedestrians. Eventually the occasional whole car. And videos of the events start appearing on YouTube.

The thread I opened in the General ED Issue section today, about an apparent error on electoral registration forms, and about whic I also emailed James, has now been moved to the Lounge. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1272263

louiseneilan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Some of the incorrect data had been passed to four > credit reference agencies. We have now contacted > them and they have deleted the incorrect data, > which had not been used. We have replaced this > information with the correct information. We would > like to reassure residents that if they had opted > out, their details are not held on record by any > third parties as a result of this error. > This doesn't make sense to me, I'm afraid. Regulation 114 of the 2001 regulations explicitly permits sale of the full register to credit reference agencies. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/1871/regulation/15/made Ed: This thread was moved, btw, from General ED Issues to the Lounge, in the last hour or two.

I've so far found that, by virtue of The Electoral Registration (Postponement of 2013 Annual Canvass) Order 2013, the 1913 annual canvass relevant date of 15 October was changed, and a postponed canvass was to be made during the period 1 October 2013 to 17 February 2014 inclusive. The regulations then state: "3.(1) Each registration officer in England must publish a revised version of their registers by 17th February 2014." If that's so, a serious initial question now is, How accurate are the Confirmation of Voter Registration 2014 notices that we've just received? And if they do accurately state the currently held value of our deemed Opt Out statuses, have any copies of the Edited Version already been sold?

It's a period of transition. This is from an Electoral Commission press release: "The Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, which received Royal Assent on 31 January 2013, provides for the introduction of Individual Electoral Registration. From summer 2014, each individual will need to provide their date of birth and national insurance number when they apply to register." http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-reviews-and-research/major-change-to-electoral-registration-can-go-ahead-but-risks-to-address,-says-electoral-commission I might look through the detailed EC stuff to see how far Southwark's practice matches their guidance (at http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/electoral-administrator/running-electoral-registration).

Ruffers. That seems to be it. Thanks. I do now remember looking at the change in legislation or administration, when the topic came up in a law newsgroup last year, but had expected official clarity, which in this case would have meant an accompanying explanation of the current request, rather than what looks like the same-old, and which states my _current_ status to be unopted-out. No online option either. No Business Reply envelope, as previously. I think I shall use one from a previous year.

In today's post I received a Confirmation of Voter Registration 2014 from Southwark Council. It has my name and nationality correct but does NOT have the Opt Out (of inclusion in edited register for sale) column ticked. It also has my address in the form [House Number] E22 9NF, London, [Actual Postcode]. I've always selected Opt Out since the option was introduced, and made no change when I last submitted my details online, via the Electoral Reform Society site, on 4 October 2013. My screen shots and a confirmation email from ERS, all of the same date, all confirm that I had selected Opt Out. I'll be contacting the Southwark electoral registration office and James Barber about this, with copies of the evidence. I very much hope hope it's the case that Southwark are not yet selling the relevant edited edition. I assume this hasn't happened just to me. [Edited to enable proper display of the erroneous address: Phorum as configured treated my angle brackets as HTML commands. I have now emailed Southwark and James B]

I hope the cyclist has been in touch with the police by now. Better avoid any sight of the photographs for the time being, to avoid any possible argument that any other eye-witness evidence may have been influenced.

bigtony2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > .. its a new card and the only place I have used > it was in The Rye. Have you actually been told by the card company that the attempted use was made on the Rye premises, or named the Rye as address? Did the card company mention the Rye?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03vdl1v

www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/musicdocs

Would you like to tell us what is in this 12.4 MB file, downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/musicdocs/musicdocs_20140211-1027a.mp3, that you would have us all download and listen to?

A repeat program about local scrap collection and dealing, on Channel 4 tonight at 23:05, might be interesting: " ... the licensed ?scrappers? who scour the streets of Sydenham for discarded cookers and sinks are at the far end of the supply chain. "It?s a case of, where there?s muck there?s brass ? and copper and lead too. ?I don?t really know what the recession is,? says scavenger Adam, who can earn up to ?100,000 a year from the junk he gathers in his transit van ? all legit. No wonder he wears a Rolex." http://www.radiotimes.com/episode/cqg9qx/getting-rich-in-the-recession--series-1---1-getting-rich-in-the-recession-scrappers

> 99,110 signatures, a mere 890 short of the 100,000 needed to force a debate in Parliament. "needed to be considered for debate" is more accurate. http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/backbench-business-committee/e-petitions-/#jump-link-0

The answer will be in here: http://www.southernrailway.com/your-journey/plan-your-journey/improvement-works/. Would someone like to summarise it?

If they're "boys aged 11-16 with no behavioural problems" you might profitably throw them to the psychologists for a couple of hours: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?6,1266476

The full refusal notice, http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/312855_1.pdf [PDF, 520kB], seems pretty unequivocal.

> Didn't this application get declined last year for a variety of reasons A change of use to A3 restaurant application was refused, 1 August 2013. See attached or this http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9549506 or post 4. > Any opinions on this? I don't see anything to have an opinion about. If you have any concerns, take them up with the Planning Department.

Same domain registrant (in Manchester) as some named here: http://startups.co.uk/forum/topic/the-kitchen-factory-more-scammer-sites-to-watch-out-for/ http://www.ultimatehandyman.co.uk/forum1/cheap-kitchens-laura-digweed-kitchen-spammers-t70752.html

When someone asked a similar question recently at http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?12,1221907,1225269#msg-1225269, I replied "I'd just try again. You should (I've just experimented) be sent a further verification email with a second confirmation code, which I expect would work.", though there's no feedback from the poster. My first guess, if that fails, would be that the email's been filtered to a spam or junk folder somewhere en route.

A degree of reassurance for right-pondians: "Twelve years after the European Union banned roxarsone, five years after it emerged as an obvious public-health menace in the scientific literature, US farmers were still applying 2 million pounds of it to chicken feed each year at the time of Pfizer's decision, Food and Water Watch estimates." http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/06/arsenic-chicken-fda-roxarsone-pfizer [2011] That was before the recent USA ban, reported at http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/pressreleases/fda-finally-bans-most-arsenic-from-animal-feed/.

Yuuna, as I've said to Admin, I'd have objected even if it had not been copyright. Discussion is not a matter of inconsiderately throwing huge chunks of verbiage at your interlocutors.

The article Yuuna has dumped on us is copyright ? 2014 | Modern Alternative Mama. It can be read at http://www.modernalternativemama.com/blog/2014/01/10/growing-up-unvaccinated-scary-potential-or-healthy-reality/ if anyone wants to. Ed: I think this thread is ripe for closing down. There has been some useful stuff on 'both' sides succinctly stated on previous pages.