Jump to content

Dannyno

Members
  • Content Count

    822
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Dannyno

  • Rank
    Registered User
  1. He actually got 15 weeks suspended for 12 months and a drug rehabilitation requirement, which is probably what he really needs. As he pleaded guilty and all the rest of it, the sentence will have been moderated in line with guidelines. He's not doing anything that's going to get him locked up for a very very long time under current rules, which means he gets out of prison in a year or two and straight back into crime. Unless he can kick the drugs, this will likely go on.
  2. Dannyno

    Sheffield Cuneos

    I think the OP is putting too much faith in "DNA testing", and that very few people really understand what is being tested and what the results - assuming them to be accurate - actually means. First of all, you correctly remember that various DNA testing companies were tested - and found to be producing different results for the same individual. So the accuracy of testing is in question. But it's worth understanding what is going on, because it's not just a question of them getting the testing or analysis wrong (although, how would anyone know if they were?). Firstly none of these companies just "tests DNA". They test part of your DNA: maybe just a couple of percent. A conclusion based on that may not hold true for the remaining percentage. Secondly, each company has its own proprietary database based on the DNA of their customers. Since companies may have bigger or smaller databases, or different demographics of customers, that may lead to different results. Because, thirdly and probably most importantly to understand, these DNA tests are not tests of ancestry. These companies do not have databases of the DNA of people from the 1800s or the 1700 or the 800 BCs or whenever. They have databases based on the DNA of people living around about now. They are comparing current populations, not ancestral populations. They tell you what you have in common with other living (or recently dead!) people. They tell you where your "relatives" (in some abstract sense) live not where your ancestors lived. So the OPs discovery that their DNA was "north Western European" just means that the small percentage of DNA actually analysed was most commonly shared (in the company's database, and note that "most commonly" doesn't mean exclusively) among contemporaries living in north Western Europe. Which isn't very specific - so maybe the company hasn't analysed enough DNA from enough of a variety of people to make a more specific claim. But this is important, because it's confusing the OP who believes their family to be Italian, which would presumably be Southern European. But just because the OP's test found that the small percentage tested was most commonly found among current north western European customers of the company, that doesn't logically mean that they're not of Italian ancestry. What would happen if you tested Italians? Maybe the same! There's also the point that if you go back far enough, simple maths tells you that you will have ancestors from whom you have inherited no DNA at all. And if you think about it, if you go back enough generations, eventually everyone shares ancestors (maths again - 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, 16 great-great grandparents, 32 great great great grandparents and so on), so there's in principle a bit of everything in all of us. A guide to all the issues which might be worth a read is here: http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/img/Ancestry-DNA-Testing-and-Privacy-Guide.pdf And a debunking guide: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking And this: https://www.theguardian.com/science/commentisfree/2015/may/24/business-genetic-ancestry-charlemagne-adam-rutherford
  3. It's obvious why. But it's worth saying that as news coverage at the time made clear, the exemption was something also requested by the Tory backbench 1922 committee. However, the Tory leadership - who originally had supported the exemption - changed tactics and, along with protests from Labour MPs, the motion was killed.
  4. Dannyno

    Sheffield parkway to NGH

    It'll take about 15 minutes on quiet roads, double that at busy times. Either way 30 minutes is absolutely nowhere near enough, taking into account parking, walking to where you want to go etc. 45 minutes is more realistic if you don't want to be rushing. But I'd set off about 9am if I were you and take it steady. Google maps is quite good for estimating journey times at particular times on particular days, broadly in line with what we're saying: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/dir/Travelodge+Sheffield+Richmond,+Prince+of+Wales+Road,+Sheffield/Northern+General+Hospital,+Sheffield/@53.3916013,-1.4747757,13z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m18!4m17!1m5!1m1!1s0x48799d511d1dd4ad:0xb7dd6bea9369d0f!2m2!1d-1.4141219!2d53.3741479!1m5!1m1!1s0x487978438922e4af:0xf58e916845d2feda!2m2!1d-1.460631!2d53.408432!2m3!6e0!7e2!8j1540371600!3e0
  5. Current maximum sentence from magistrates for possession of a "bladed article" is 4 years. https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/item/bladed-articles-and-offensive-weapons-possession/ Sentencing guidelines for using a firearm are here: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/firearms If you're saying 10 years, you're more lenient then the current state of the law. Mandatory minimum sentences apply in some cases. Use of firearm to resist arrest - maximum life imprisonment Possession while committing offence - max life imprisonment Possession with intent - max life Carrying in public - 7 years Knives etc: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offensive-weapons-knives-bladed-and-pointed-articles Stop and search cannot be random under the current law (except in certain circumstances), which is a good thing because it has always been widely abused by the police. There have to be reasonable grounds. According to https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/658099/police-powers-procedures-mar17-hosb2017.pdf there were nearly 304,000 stop and searches in the year up to March 2017, which is a reduction. How effective are they? Just 17% led to an arrest. But on another measure, in 21% of stop and searches "the outcome of the search was linked to the initial reason for the search." So not always an arrestable outcome. But that means in the vast majority of stop and search incidents, the outcome was not linked to the reason for the stop, and in most cases leads to no arrest. In 71% of cases the result was "no further action". There was an non-arrest outcome in 12% of cases. Not sure what that means, but maybe indicates some kind of case to answer even if not arrestable. So it doesn't seem that effective really.
  6. Directions here seem clear: https://www.sth.nhs.uk/our-hospitals/charles-clifford-dental-hospital/how-to-get-here
  7. Dannyno

    The whetstone pub

    No, wasn't Sutcliffe arrested in Broomhill? Outside the Light Trades House, Melbourne Avenue?
  8. Dannyno

    1959 Bank heist

    I found an article about the trial in the Guardian of 8 August 1959. It was a robbery of a "bank car", rather than a bank as such. £49,500 was stolen. Those on trial were James Jennings (29), a London street trader; Patrick Moore (39), a London bookie's assistant; and Ronald Strongman (32), described as a "general dealer", also from London. Jennings was charged with conspiracy, being an accessory, and procuring Moore and Strongman and others to commit the robbery, and the others with actually carrying out the robbery. Jennings doesn't seem to have been present when the robbery happened. On 8 July 1959, Williams Deacon bank employees had collected money from other banks and were taking it to the Attercliffe Road branch. Some of the money was in a kitbag locked in the car boot, the rest in a suitcase in the car. A Jaguar car overtook the bank car and forced it to stop. "A number of men" jumped out, among them Moore and Strongman. They smashed the bank car windows with pieces of wood, grabbed the suitcase, opened the boot and took the kitbag, and then drove off in a van. The van was found abandoned on wasteland,and had been obtained by Jennings in London using a false name and a stolen driving license. The Jaguar had been stolen on 12 June in Marylebone, London. Jennings told police he'd been paid £80 for his part. Clearly others were involved, but those put on trial did not reveal their names. ---------- Post added 16-09-2018 at 18:29 ---------- The robbery itself was reported in the Guardian of 9 July 1959:
  9. Dannyno

    Road resurfacing

    I can't help lazy reporting. The fact is that Amey were not contracted to resurface every road in the first five years. And I'm not seeing anything in what you've said here that shows that they were. Your first quote is just rhetoric, and obviously not a contractual target: And your BBC quote is: Which may or may not be true or achievable, but is obviously not a contractual target of resurfacing every road in the first five years. Because those five years ended in 2017, not in 2020. Nobody has ever quoted any contractual term that says they were to have resurfaced everything in five years. If you can find any contractual term, or any official statement by either Amey or the Council, to suggest otherwise, I'd be happy to be corrected.
  10. Dannyno

    Road resurfacing

    I can't make head nor tail of that. Can you explain where it says that they were contracted to resurface every road in the first five years?
  11. Dannyno

    Doorstop milk deliveries

    Apparently McQueens source their milk from First Milk, which is a dairy farmers cooperative. So their milk is coming from all over the place. ---------- Post added 06-09-2018 at 08:46 ---------- Hillborough Dairies, last time I checked, were owned by a company based in Hampshire, which itself was not a farm but sourced from various farmers.
  12. Dannyno

    Road resurfacing

    But they didn't sign up to a contract to resurface all the roads in the first 5 years.
  13. People are rubbish eye-witnesses generally.
  14. People are also very bad at judging distance.
  15. It'll just be a cat. People are very bad at judging size at distance.
×

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.