markfor

Brilliant our council. We could have hung lights on trees if there are any left

off Abbeydale Rd

Very sad Bardwells closed Have been going there for years!

Crookes main road 3 chip shops

Sheffield Freecycle

Has anyone been to new venue Edwards on Glossop Rd? Isit a music venue?

It is amazing that this very valuable site has been left as it is!!!!

Go to Amey They are pulling them all up

Yes bring Nick Clegg back

Yes bring Nick Clegg back

EBAY for a stethoscope

I live 2 minutes from Bowling Greens Very shocked at this news

Do u remember the old Psalter Tavern That used to be a great pub

Any news about what they intend to do to Endcliffe Park

Can anyone help with upgrading IMac operating system from Snow Leopard?

I agree Grass cuttings just left on surface around Crookes Walkley

John Bee Great place Very helpful

Yes same in Crookes For 2 days all cars moved but no work done

If you look at the street gullies most of them are blocked Where Amey have resurfaced roads they are blocked with tarmac No wonder Sheffield floods:rant: ---------- Post added 13-04-2017 at 11:43 ---------- If you look at the street gullies most of them are blocked Where Amey have resurfaced roads they are blocked with tarmac No wonder Sheffield floods:rant:

Design Studio ;)Ecclesall Rd

I used to live on Tasker Rd Crookes where he used to live. Think he used to go in Masons Arms. He did great versions of Delta Lady and The Letter

Roneys Sharrow Vale Rd?

Supreme Court rules Private Parking Enforcement is LEGAL In a resounding victory for Landowners and Private Car Park Operators, the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, today handed down its decision in the matter of Essex chip shop owner and self proclaimed Parking Tzar verses Parkingeye Ltd over the matter of an £85.00 Parking Charge Notice. On 15 April 2013, Mr Beavis had visited the Riverside Retail Park which was managed by ParkingEye, who displayed numerous notices throughout the car park, saying that a failure to comply with a two hour time limit would “result in a Parking Charge of £85”. Mr Beavis parked in the car park, but overstayed the two hour limit by almost an hour. ParkingEye demanded payment of the £85 charge. Mr Beavis argued that the £85 charge was unenforceable at common law as a penalty, and/or that it was unfair and unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision rejecting those arguments and now this decision has been re-enforced by the Supreme Court, which has determined that the purpose of the Charge is to deter motorists from breaching the Terms and Conditions and the charge was no higher than was necessary to achieve that objective.

Having no hard shoulder seems incredibly dangerous as situation below!!

People who say just ignore are wrong There was a case in 2015 that changed legal ruling about this