ianr

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.

Admin, has it ever got as far as a solicitor's letter?

Can a planning committee refuse an application in order to help the tenant avoid the consequences to their security of tenure of their landlord's wish to do reconstruction of the premises?

Trial outcome here: http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/10468219.VIDEO__Roumelia_Lane_shooting__four_men_found_guilty_of_manslaughter_of_Reece_James/

Where are the data that you are talking about? They seem, again, from the above image, to be only about insurance claims, specifically for burglary, for an undisclosed period, from an unknown universe of insurers.

This URL will do: http://www.amazon.co.uk/SUNLUXY%C2%AE-Waterproof-Outdoor-Surveillance-Security/dp/B00B22RIY6/

This was first discussed here five weeks ago. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1232388 Was legal advice ever sought?

Ossa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My question is more about whether it is entirely the school's idea or whether this > is an initiative prompted or suggested by the LEA? The letter mentions the educational welfare > officer, whom I thought was an LEA provision. It's presumably a pro forma letter. Could we see a redacted copy? It's difficult in any case to comment on its (un)reasonableness without seeing it in full.

> We don't own them, none of us felt the need to be homeowners and because we built them our rents are low So what kind of body does own them? Do you have a share in that?

I was drafting s post on those lines too. They're presumably the department with whom any referral would end up. They'd also, if so, know how best to get an address, through their own or police RIPA powers, or otherwise, from BT.

Name & Registered Office: ROHAN CREATING SPACE LTD. 60 CARLESS AVENUE HARBORNE BIRMINGHAM WEST MIDLANDS B17 9BW Company No. 07536733 Status: Dissolved 04/12/2012 Date of Incorporation: 21/02/2011 -------- Name & Registered Office: ROHAN CREATIVE LIMITED [same address] Company No. 07899169 Status: Dissolved 20/08/2013 Date of Incorporation: 05/01/2012 ----------------- Directors/company secretaries of both at various times: Paul Edward McGinnity b. 1955 James Paul McGinnity b.1977 Hazel Margaret McGinnity b.1951 Kelly Louise McGinnity b.1980 James Paul McG was a director at time of dissolution in both cases. No current directorships found on limited search. -------- PEM and HMG were director/secretary of Trade Interiors(Midland) Ltd 5/92-2/93 Hazel Margeret (sic) McG was secretary of Zalon Ltd 10/77-5/08 Sarah Hazel McG b.1974 was a director of Zalon Ltd 25/10/07 until its dissolution 29/9/09 James Paul McG was director of JP Support Services (UK) Ltd 3/06-9/08 Kelly Louise McG was its secretary, 3/06 until its dissolution 11/09/2012

James, isn't it better for TGTBT to use the established reporting system, and contact you, and tell us, only if it appears ineffective? It's a sorry administration if all contacts between public and officers have to be channelled through a councillor.

Here's a small amount of hard snapshot data from 2008. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,151452,189304

There was no statistically significant change between 1996 and 2011/12 in last year use of tranquillisers (0.4% and 0.5% respectively) or anabolic steroids (0.3% and 0.2% respectively); there has been little variation in levels during that period. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/drug-misuse-declared-findings-from-the-2011-to-2012-crime-survey-for-england-and-wales-csew-second-edition/drug-misuse-declared-findings-from-the-2011-to-2012-crime-survey-for-england-and-wales-csew-second-edition [Crime Survey for England & Wales, declared drug misuse, 16-59 yr olds, 2011/12] The page contains links to various Excel tables.

It will be tomorrow, surely? the lags are two days at most. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200084/recycling_and_waste/3342/christmas_recycling

The Peckham Rye box junction is not a roundabout.

Best according to what criteria? Only you know what they are. If you're interested in times, you'll probably want to check these anyway, so why not go straight to http://tfl.gov.uk journey planner?

Are you talking about a food allergy, or something environmental? My problems have always been with the latter, and with time and experiment, even those can be mainly identified. One strategy with food is to try an exclusion diet, and then gradually introduce individual foods one by one. Or even checking for pulse change after a particular food or exposure can be useful.

"That the cleansing of the footways and watercourses, by the occupiers of houses, should be more rigidly enforced, particularly after a fall of snow, and that a notice, in the form submitted, should be issued annually to each householder, about the 1st day of November, directing attention to the necessity of attending to this work." -- from "a list of the Resolutions of an active character, which have been passed by the Vestry since March 1873",quoted in the Annual Report of the Vestry of the Parish of Saint George, Hanover Square, for the year ended 25th March, 1879.

Tell him, "Ah, I'd been thinking of getting you the XYZ instead. Would that have done?" ?? It might just be that it's pretty acceptable to him anyway, and even turns out on examination to be the one he really likes. The luxury of choice.

The intended change in charges was announced on 5 June 2013. Are London police still using outdated forms and amending them manually? Has this been a common practice? Is there any knowledge of guidance they've been given on making the amendments, or on explaining them at the time to recipients? Are the court fixed penalty clerks aware of the manual amendments to the forms? Do they receive copies of the notices as amended? How did the penalty clerk's office respond to the receipt of the ?60 cheque?

You were given 28 days to say that you wished to contest the legality of the notice, potentially before a court, but you chose not to. I don't think you can do so now. I don't in any case see anything in s.52 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (part III) that might have helped you. You might conceivably have had an argument if the constable had not altered the amount. As it is, there was no ?60 FP in October 2013. They had all been raised to ?100 on 16 August 2013 (see SI 2013/2025). The ?150 fine is presumably one now registered with the court as a fine levied against an FPN defaulter. (same Act, ss.55(3),70,71). If you default on that they can do whatever courts are allowed to do with fine defaulters. Was your ?60 cheque cleared? If so, are you now being asked to pay more than the ?90 balance? If that's the case it may be that the court penalty clerk's office is also at fault and could be asked to correct that. You might at the same time, or anyway, want to mention your own error in apparently believing that the constable's endorsement was of no effect, and ask whether they were aware of the fact of the clerical amendment to the "?60" as printed.