ianr

BTW https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/understanding-enforcement-process/parking-penalty-charge-notice-enforcement-process is a useful information source. More items are available from the menubar Environment and Traffic Adjudicators header.

Just to check: what is actually meant by "in Calton"? > was up by 180% in Dulwich Village, And ditto, for "Dulwich Village" And "London City".

Stop Trump Coalition wrote at 19.53 on 15 September: > Many of you have also asked, though, > about how you can help ‘welcome’ > Donald Trump to Windsor when he > arrives there tomorrow (Tuesday) > evening. So here’s the plan: You presume. Why are you posting this here?

WHAT meeting? WHAT consultation papers? Why haven't you said? What are you hiding from us? Why?

If an appeal went as far as the tribunal stage, the adjudicator wouldn't have the power to allow it without proof that the PCN was unlawful -- eg through inadequate signage or doubt as to time of the alleged offence; but not, I think, failure to renew before expiry. :) I don't see why though you couldn't go through the initial phase of representations to the council, apologising, maybe explaining, and seeking their exercise of discretion. I don't think it would be at all unreasonable in the circumstances for you to ask and for them to cancel it; maybe with a warning not to be so grievously lax next time? Make sure that it gets done asap. I _think_ they extend the deadline for reduced payment if they eventually refuse your request, but am not sure. Can anyone here confirm that from their own experience? PS: An afterthought. Might there just be possibly applicable case law, convention , whatever, as to whether payment at any time today had effect for the whole of the day? I wouldn't count on it, but I'd be looking/inquiring.

When you dig into the site, there's an ancillary domain also involved in the system: neighbourhoodalert.co.uk; and one pointed to by the latter as an example, stayintheknow.co.uk, which seems to have been set up by Lancashire. All three long validated by Nominet and with same registrar. metengage_etc_whois.txt

Two 10 Sept 25 reports happened upon in https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/more-cyclists-were-injured-in-southwark-than-anywhere-else-in-london-last-year/ === Over 400 cyclists were injured in road accidents in Southwark last year, according to data from the Met Police – more than in any other London borough. An FOI submitted by Accident Claims Advice revealed that 411 cyclists reported being injured in Southwark in 2024/25, including 111 serious injuries and 300 minor injuries. The same FOI also found that 227 pedestrians were injured in road accidents in Southwark during the same time frame, including 2 deaths, 76 serious injuries and 118 slight injuries. Westminster had the most pedestrian accidents (423) followed by Croydon (284) === PLUS Exclusive: Collisions have almost tripled on Lower Road since cycle lane was installed, data suggests This is premium content for subscribers only ... ===

There's a ?new Radio 4 short documentary programme, The Cat Killer Detectives, that might be of interest to some. It talks to the couple who ran SNARL, and provides something of their account of how the project began, developed and ended, and the effect it had on their lives then and subsequently. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002j5nr

Crossed w P68, to whom thanks for the input.

From the whois record: Domain Status Registered And No Website

I see that there was a government consultation started in July 2024, a response, and then a revision to the National Planning Policy Framework, and then to the Green Belt guidance in February 2025, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/green-belt . It includes the updates but doesn't give the nescient much clue of what was materially changed. There will probably be some good, and less good, summaries to be found.

> The change of use of the green belt to call it brown belt for building Has there been any reclassification?

On your last point jazzer, no. I've been reading around various aspects of them today. The majority of them appear to be not much more than whey obtained from milk. That makes them about 75-80% protein. Have a look at the H&B products. They list all constituents. On the 18+ issue, OP, I suspect that what you noticed was probably at most a recommendation that they not be used by under-18s. Even then, I only came across it on one website, by chance, when seeking for evidence of prohibitions: https://ultimatesupsg.com/blogs/nutrition/whey-protein-should-individuals-under-the-age-of-18-take-whey-protein-to-build-muscle.

I'm not sure it's sensible to presume any agreement from interlocutors, but if you do, then I do agree that it's the right thing to say so. My own guess -- it's nothing more -- is that the officers were acting just to effect an arrest on arrival, as requested, quite possibly without any knowledge of the content of wretched tweet at all*, and that their being armed was absolutely incidental. But I don't know any reliable facts. I do think the turning up (5?) en masse to do so was possibly complacent and unthinking, if there was no reason to believe the arrestee was a threat. If they had been doing so for good reason, I guess they could have had at least one weapon trained at him, and had him hands above head or on the ground in no time. But I know no reliable facts of the incident whatsoever. Perhaps they were Father Ted fans -- seriously -- and trogged along, on a quiet afternoon, to see the man himself. Perhaps they and/or their CO will get a severe bollocking from above. I don't know. * But even that with some reservations. The last time I looked up cases on wrongful arrest, years ago, I think I remember there being held then to be at least some onus on the acting arresting officer to be satisfied that the required grounds for a lawful arrest did exist. And I don't know any of the facts of the present case.

I think you need to say here what specific preparation and brand it was. I can't even find any protein powder on the H&B web page https://www.hollandandbarrett.com/shop/sports-nutrition/protein/ at £13.50, only one item reduced from £13.50 to £8, and doubt it was that Also, please, link/s to whichever article/s it was that mentioned kidney damage.