Jump to content

dave_the_m

Members
  • Content Count

    205
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About dave_the_m

  • Rank
    Registered User

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The fans didn't turn up late. The facilities at the Leppings Lane end were inadequate to cope with an away crowd that was for an FA Cup semi-final, so large crowds built up.
  2. As far as I'm aware, single/double yellow lines prohibit parking on the adjacent pavement as well as the road itself and similarly, it's prohibited to park across drop-down kerbs. Other than that there are no specific restrictions on parking on the pavement apart from potentially causing an obstruction (preventing free passage on the public highway). But I am not a lawyer.
  3. In the multi-storey car park next to the station, where there's 30 minutes free parking.
  4. The changes seem to be: Along Corporation street S of the roundabout, increase from 2 to 3 lanes in both N and S directions. Move the NE corner of the roundabout loop further east, making it tighter and reduced from 2 lanes to 1. I imagine this simplifies the junction between Nursery St and the Westward limb of the ring road, making it a 4-way rather than 5-way junction and so reducing the wait at the lights. Increase from 1 to 2 the lanes of traffic heading E on Derek Dooley way which can fork left onto Saville St. Plus changes / improvements to cycle and pedestrian routes
  5. Perhaps we should shortly be on the lookout for a saloon car with 'ambulance' crossed out, and 'fire engine' newly written on it?
  6. You should take this to the pepipoo or money-savings-experts private parking forums; you'll receive specialist advice there. But in short: they will take you to court. £60 of the £160 is an illegal extra charge which some courts have started to reject. Court charges will amount to an extra £100 + 8% interest if you lose. The supreme court decided that £85 was reasonable for overstaying in a free car park, so the extravagant / no loss argument no longer works . Your strongest defence is probably the poor signage - especially if the signs don't make it clear that a new charge has been introduced. I assume the driver was identified in you earlier appeals. Note that the IAS (assuming that's who you meant by "ombudsman") is not actually independent and rejects around 85% of appeals.
  7. The main reason TfL are facing a big deficit is that the start of Crossrail was suddenly delayed by a year or more, and TfL's budget assumed revenue from that service.
  8. I think Totley might be served by the small Bradway Repeater transmitter - so any faults would be fairly local to your area.
  9. An MP is supposed to represent the interests of their constituents according to their best judgement and conscience. Sometimes this means voting against their own party. If doing this meant instant dismissal as an MP, then parliament would soon become a collection of people voting purely the way their leader tells them at all times, regardless of whether it a bad idea or not.
  10. Well, Sheffield Electoral Services have now analysed the petition and found 21,815 valid signatures from registered voters, so a referendum will be going ahead no later than May 2020.
  11. You are arguing (correct me if I'm wrong) that Sheffield people should not make any decision to move to a committee system unless they can first see how it worked out for a similar unitary authority. Presumably you hold a similar opinion about Leeds, Newcastle etc : that their denizens should hold off on a decision until somewhere else has tried it first. So can you explain to me how the first authority could ever change?
  12. By that logic it's impossible for any large metropolitan councils to ever change - everyone is paralysed waiting for someone else to jump first.
  13. Well, if the petition turns out to be immensely flawed, then one would assume it will take the powers-that-be at SCC (who have a strong vested interest in finding flaws) about five minutes to find the obvious flaws and reject the petition. So there's nothing to worry about, surely?
  14. Ok, let me explain really, really slowly. The Campaign will have collected signatures through various means - a website, paper forms etc. At some point, this data will have been collected by the campaign organisers, and may have been filtered and de-duplicated. For example the web site may provide a facility to the petition organisers to download the data in in a bulk format suitable for importing into a spreadsheet or database where it can be post-processed. That is to say the data formally submitted to SCC may not be the same as the data on the web site. It may be, it may not be - I am not privy to how the Campaign have managed the petition. From the knowledge I have, proof that there are duplicates and bad data on the web site is not proof that what the campaign submitted to SCC has the same flaws. Again, I don't know either way and have an open mind on the subject, On the other hand, you are assuming that the two are the same, without providing any evidence that this is the case.
  15. You seem to be (deliberately?) conflating the contents of a website used as one avenue of collecting signatures, with whatever the Campaign finally submitted to SCC, after any filtering, deduplicating etc that may have taken place. If you have evidence that the submitted results were invalid, then by all means share them here.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.