ianr

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.

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?